F I N A L   O R D E R

This is a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for order directing the O.Ps.to pay the compensation of Rs.12,60,144.50/- from the total loss amount including interest and to refund all original papers which has been deposited in the O.P’s Bank custody to the complainants.

The complainants’ case in short is that the present complainants’ predecessor being the proprietor of M. R. Trading Company had a cash credit account holder of United Bank of India, Raiganj, Debinagar Branch. His CC limit in the bank was Rs.3,00,000/- and to continue his CC limit, after long discussion with the then Branch Manager, UBI, Debinagar Branch and after getting assurance from him that his CC limit will be enhanced if the predecessor of the complainants , Mohini Ranjan Roy submits some required documents; the predecessor of the present complainants prepared all the legal papers, IT file etc with incurring much expenditure and submitted it to the said branch. In the meantime said branch manager, UBI, Raiganj was transferred and the predecessor of the complainants, Mohini Ranjan Roy alleged that the new Branch Manager joined in the said post refused to enhance his CC limit. Thereafter he physically contract with the Regional Manager of UBI and also sent lot of official letters to the higher authority of the Bank even conducted with the banking OMBUDSMEN (RBI) but O.Ps. did not take any steps to enhance his CC limit. So, Mohini Ranjan Roy, predecessor of the complainants suffered monetary loss and also loss of his goodwill in business. He, thereafter, forced to file this complaint to get relief before this Forum with prayer as mentioned above. During pendency of this case the predecessor of the complainants, Mohini Ranjan Roy died and the present complainants are substituted as legal hires of the deceased complainant as per order No 30 dated 16.09.14. 

On the contrary, all the O.Ps. contested this case by filing W.V.; where in they denied inter alia all the material allegations made in the complaint. Their specific case is that after taking the above loan the predecessor of the complainants, Mohini Ranjan Roy did not maintain the terms and conditions of the said loan and he was continuously defaulter from the beginning to repayment of his loan amount and there were no transactions in the said account since 30.04.2011 as such the above account was turning to NPA. The O.Ps. also alleged that the business of the predecessor of the complainants for which he took loan was closed since last two years and due to the above reasons the O.Ps. did not enhance the CC limit of deceased Mohni Ranjan Roy. So, as per the O.Ps’. version there was no any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. in providing service and  they prayed that this case is liable to be dismiss with cost.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

To establish the case, the predecessor of the complainants, deceased Mohini Ranjan Roy has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by him and filed bunch of documents which has been challenged by the O.P. No.1 by adducing evidence.

We carefully perused the contents of the petition of complaint, W.V., documentary evidence on record and arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the sides.

It is admitted that the predecessor of the complainants, Mohini Ranjan Roy had a CC account holder under the Bank of the O.Ps. of Rs.2,00,000/- since 24.02.2005 and the said loan was extended to Rs.3,00,000/- on 17.08.2005. Thereafter the deceased Mohini Ranjan Roy gave a proposal for enhancing of his CC limit which was not considered by the O.P./Bank as it did not fulfill the Bank’s norms for enhancing CC limit. The deceased complainant challenged the decision of the Bank before the Banking Ombudsman having its office at Kolkatta. The Banking Ombudsman, vide its letter dated 17/05/2012 informed that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P./Bank in this case

And the complaint filed by the deceased complainant Mohini Ranjan Roy against the O.P./bank regarding the enhancement of the CC limit has been rejected and closed under clause 13(a) Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006.

Now question arises in the above situation whether the O.P./Bank could reject the said proposal for enhancing of the complainants’ CC limit or not.

As per observations of the superior authorities as noted in the annotation of Sec-14 (book of P. K. Majumdar)of C.P.Act1986: “Grant of loans and O.D. facilities by Bank are matters within exclusive discretion of Bank depending upon merits of the case and Forum under the Act cannot substitute its judgment for decision of Bank” and as per Sec-13: “Where the loan was not finally sanctioned by the Bank then non-disbursement of subsidy does not amount deficiency in service on part of Bank”.

In the fact and circumstances of this case the above observations of the superior authorities are applicable here. So, we are of the opinion that the complainants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed in their complaint and accordingly this case is liable to be dismissed.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

that the complaint case No. CC-83/2012 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps./Bank without cost.

Let the copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.