Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 28-07-2017 of the Ld. District Forum, Hooghly, passed in complaint case no. 46/2013.

The following facts need mention for disposal of this Appeal.

Appellant is a cultivator by profession.  Although he happened to be a good customer of the OP Bank for long time, because of huge treatment costs of his wife and daughter, he encountered severe rough weather to make ends meet.  Therefore, he tried hard to get agriculture loan from different authorities, including the Respondent Bank, but in vain.  The grievance of the Appellant against the Respondent is that, not only the latter refused to grant the desired loan to him, it also debarred him from withdrawing money from his savings account. 

In its defence, it was submitted by the Respondent that due to non-payment of dues, the loan accounts (Term loan and Kishan Credit Card loan) of the Appellant turned NPA.  In such circumstances, exercising its legal right of lien and set off, the Respondent adjusted the aforesaid loan accounts by withdrawing and adjusting some part of the balance available in the savings account of the Appellant. 

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocates for the parties were heard and documents on record gone through carefully.

It is though claimed by the Appellant that all dues were cleared on 18-10-2008, documents on record depict a totally different picture.  It is seen from the documents that a considerable sum of money stood outstanding in the name of the Appellant for which the Respondent applied its right of lien and set off and realized requisite money from his savings account. In doing so, we do not think, the Respondent committed no illegality. 

Similarly, on the aspect of non-grant of agriculture loan too, we have not found any fault on the part of the Respondent.  It is the absolute discretion of a bank to allow or reject a loan application.  Even a Court of Law cannot encroach on such discretionary power of the bank.  There is nothing to show that the bank arbitrarily turned down the request of the Appellant to grant him due loan.  Rather, it appears that taking into consideration the poor performance of the Appellant to repay the previous loans, the Respondent took such decision.

There is no denying the fact that, thanks to the firm stand taken by the Respondent, the Appellant faced difficulty in withdrawing money from his savings account.    However, since everything was done in exercise of the legal right of the Respondent; no mala fide intention can be ascribed to it for adopting harsh measures to realize outstanding dues.

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity with the impugned order and accordingly, we refrain from interfering with it in any manner whatsoever.

As a result, the Appeal stands dismissed on contest.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed. Parties do bear their respective costs.