Order-14.
Date-18/06/2015.
Complainant Pramod Kumar Gharai by filing this complaint submitted that complainant intended to run a Centre for Pathological Laboratory for his livelihood by self employment and for that purpose he applied for a loan to D.I.C. Kolkata on 12.08.2009 amounting to Rs. 5,69,000/- for the purpose of running Pathological Laboratory and op no.2 United Bank of India sanctioned loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 30.12.2009 and the said loan was sanctioned pursuant to payment of 25 percent Govt. Subsidy on SC/ST Category against bank finance sanction under Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) of KVIC.Out of the total sanctioned amount, op no.2 released of Rs. 1,25,600/- only to the complainant on 05.02.2010 leaving a balance loan of Rs. 2,74,400/-.
Complainant wanted to purchase a SEMI Auto Analyser complete set from Avenue Scientific House at 112, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata – 700073 at the settled price of Rs. 1,45,600/- being the sale value of the said machine and complainant paid Rs. 20,000/- as advance to the said company on 02.02.2010.
Thereafter complainant arranged for loan from U.B.I., Alipore Branch and op no.2 paid an amount of Rs. 1,25,600/- direct to Avenue Scientific House towards purchasing of Semi Auto Analyser Machine and despite receipt of the said amount, Avenue Scientific House failed and omitted and neglected to deliver the said machine to the complainant for which complainant filed a consumer complaint on 15.06.2010 against the Avenue Scientific House before the District Forum at Kolkata Unit – II for gross negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and after hearing the Ld. Forum was pleased to pass an order on 24.11.2010 in favour of the complainant.Accordingly by the order op was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and also to pay the entire amount of Rs. 1,45,600/-.Thereafter for noncompliance of the order dated 24.11.2010, by that that company Jdr was sent to custody and after few days Jdr offered to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- which complainant agreed to receive in full and final settlement of the order dated 24.11.2010 and complainant deposited the bank draft no. 3013 dated 09.10.2013 for Rs. 1,10,000/- to his account at op UBI, Alipore Branch.
Thereafter complainant vide a letter dated 20.04.2013 requested the op no.2 to release the balance loan amount of Rs. 2,74,400/-.But in reply op no.1 has sent a letter dated 11.05.2013 stating that sanction letter dated 30.12.2009 has become invalid.On the contrary op no.1 has stated that compensation/compromise proceed amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- was to be refunded to the loan account and they have further stated that they are agreed to allow revalidation of loan account subject to deposit of Rs. 50,000/- allegedly enjoyed by the complainant.
Thereafter complainant sent a letter dated 15.05.2013 issued by the op no.1 and complainant however requested to arrange for a meeting to solve the problem.But op remained silent to sanction balance amount and loan amount including interest i.e. Rs. 1,60,000/- has been paid by the complainant.
Complainant vide letter dated 09.12.2014 wanted confirmation regarding the said subsidy mentioned above and op no.1 vide letter dated 15.12.2014 has confirmed that amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- received by the complainant on 03.01.2013.
Son there was no outstanding loan including such claim of alleged Rs. 50,000/- vide letter dated 11.05.2013 by the op no.1 is arbitrary, illegal and baseless and in the above circumstances, complainant prayed for directing the op to release of Rs. 2,74,400/- and compensation.
On the other hand op nos. 1 & 2 by filing written statement submitted that the entire complaint is not maintainable, mis-conceived and vexatious one and in fact complainant neither made present op a party in previous Complaint No. 202/2010 nor informed the op Bank about the dispute of the said case although the machine in question was hypothecated with the op Bank and in fact present complainant managed to get the entire amount.But it should be deposited to the Bank when the loan was partially allowed.Moreover complainant has practically enjoyed that Rs. 1,10,000/- to be deposited in his Savings A/C on 24.06.2012 but only deposited Rs. 60,000/- to the loan account of the complainant with the op Bank on 31.10.2012.
Further complainant after availing of loan on 05.02.2010 did not pay any installment till 30.07.2011 as such the loan account was irregular and op Bank made several requests to repay the loan amount but the complainant did not pay any heed to it and one of such demand letter was sent by op Bank to the complainant on 31.05.2011,Further op stated that according to RBI guideline a loan can be declared as non-performing asset or irregular or bad in the event of interest and installment of principal remain overdue for a period of more than 90 days in respect of a term loan.
In this case the loan amount of the complainant remained irregular for a period near about 3 years.So the loan should have been repaid within 60 equated monthly installments from disbursement of the loan and complainant did not pay any amount with the loan account of 17 months from disbursement.Thereafter on 25.08.2011 complainant made payment of Rs. 8,750/- and further paid Rs. 1,750/- on 03.11.2011, 03.02.2012, 03.05.2012, 03.08.2012 and 03.11.2012 respectively.Therefore the total amount paid by the complainant was Rs. 97,500/- but the complainant did not pay the required amount to regularize the loan account and as such even after such payment the loan account remained irregular and op Bank had to adjust the subsidy amount to the loan account of the complainant as per KVIC norms.
According to the terms of the subsidy scheme (KVIC norms) Bank authority has liberty that if the advance goes back before 3 years, Government subsidy will be adjusted to liquidate loan liability of the beneficiary with interest and the subsidy amount was received by the op Bank and at the loan account of the complainant was irregular and bad as a result the op Bank adjusted the subsidy amount to the loan account of the complainant.
But even then subject to payment of Rs. 50,000/- within 30.12.2014 (as per letter dated 11.05.2013) on sympathetic ground, op Bank would consider the demand of the complainant, but that has not been paid and in fact complainant by receiving that Rs. 1,10,000/- on the basis of decree back behind the knowledge of the op Bank mis-appropriated the said fund and the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- was mis-appropriated by the complainant and when that amount is not paid, then under any circumstances the matter cannot be reconsidered and in fact complainant deposited the same of Rs. 78,683.92 paisa in his loan account, thus adjusting the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- the account was closed.
So, in the above circumstances, complainant is not entitled to any further amount and the present complaint should be dismissed with cost.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the complaint and the written version including the documents as produced by the complainant and the op, it is clear that complainant took loan for purchasing Semi Auto Analyser Machine for starting a Pathological Laboratory under Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) of KVIC.Initially loan was sanctioned to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 30.12.2009 by the present Bank and out of that a sum of Rs. 1,25,600/- was released by the Bank out of the total sanctioned amount and balance loan amount of Rs. 2,74,400/- was not paid.
Truth is that the said Rs. 1,25,600/- was released by issuing a cheque in favour of Avenue Scientific House towards purchasing a Semi Auto Analyser Machine.Fact remains that the said Avenue Scientific House failed to deliver the said machine when complainant filed the consumer complaint against the said Avenue Scientific House for realizing of the said amount or for delivery of the said Semi Auto Analyser Machine to the complainant and that complaint was registered as CC No. 202/2010.
But peculiar fact is that in that case this Bank is not made a party and on the basis of the order of the Forum in Execution Case, complainant after receiving of Rs. 1,10,000/- from the Avenue Scientific House compromised the case.But fact remains that amount would be deposited to the Bank by the complainant because that machine which was not delivered by the Avenue Scientific House would be hypothecated and no doubt by receiving such amount and when deposited the entire amount to the Bank loan account of the complainant, no doubt misappropriated the loan amount because it is the mandatory provision of law and as per RBI guideline and also as per rules and regulations of KVIC, no part of amount which has been sanctioned as loan for the purpose of purchasing any machinery, cannot be realized from the seller by the lonee member and to enjoy it.If any machine is not delivered by the seller, even after receipt of the cheque from the Bank, in that case, customer that is the lone member shall have to report the Bank Authority and Bank Authority shall have to take such step.But in this case complainant by adopting unfair means without impleading to his Bank branch to receive the entire amount from the Avenue Scientific House.But fact remains that amount was paid by the Bank and by that act no doubt complainant committed offence.
Another factor is that after receiving of Rs. 1,10,000/- the complainant deposited Rs. 60,000/- and then balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been misappropriated.But complainant would pay Rs. 1,10,000/- to the said Bank forthwith, in that case, further balance amount ought to have been released.But complainant was defaulter always and ultimately he paid only Rs. 60,000/-.So, subsidy amount was adjusted against that loan amount rightly as per KVIC Rules and fact remains that the said account was adjusted with loan account and loan account being Nos. 0070300013314 and 0070300015835 and the account was closed.
So, at this stage there is no scope on the part of the op to release any further amount in view of the fact that the said loan account is no doubt dead.Fact remains that complainant misappropriated Rs. 50,000/- of the loan amount without starting any Pathological Laboratory for which the entire subsidy amount was rightly adjusted and truth is that this complainant did not pay any amount after taking initial loan amount of Rs. 1,25,600/-.So, in the eye of law, op Bank did not act illegally, rightly closed the loan account after adjusting subsidy.But fact remains that in such a manner many unemployed persons misappropriated the loan amount and this is the glaring instance and misappropriation of loan by the complainant and truth is that Bank rightly did it and there is no question of any illegality or any further balance loan amount.
In view of the fact that account has already been closed and complainant did not start any Pathological Laboratory since the date of sanctioning the loan on 05.02.2010.In the result the entire complaint is false, fabricated and fact remains that this complainant is a dishonest persons who managed to procured loan.But considering the status of the complainant as a man of SC/ST Community, this Forum is not imposing any penal cost, but this Forum is warning this complainant to be more careful, cautious in future or in his life he faces many problems.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed without any cost against the ops.
