ABANTI MALLIK vs BRANCH MANAGER, O.S.F.C.

DEFICIENCY in finance service is the grievance of the complainant.

THE case of the complainant is that she applied for a loan to establish an industry under the unemployment scheme. Loan was sanctioned on the basis of which building was constructed. However, dispute arose at the time of fixture of machinery. On account of various obstructions raised by the parties, the machineries could not be obtained and fixed. THEy demanded that the entrepreneur''s investment should be made, although complainant has arranged supply of machinery in a manner by which she would not have to invest any money. On account of this dispute, there was delay and the machineries have not yet been supplied to be fixed. Complainant has clearly stated to the opposite parties that she is not in a position to contribute her share of the finance for the machinery at that stage. 3. Case of opposite parties is that the loan was advanced under a refinance scheme. Requirements of the agreement have not been satisfied by the complainant and in the meantime the period of refinance having lapsed, she is required to apply again. THErefore, there is no deficiency in service. After hearing the complainant herself and Mr. Biswamohan Patnaik, learned Counsel for the opp. parties and perusing the terms of the scheme, we find that it is provided that in case any portion of the sanctioned loan is taken within one and half years, there would be no scope for cancellation of the loan and the printed clause relating to refinance was struck off from the agreement in ink. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no necessity of another application for refinancing.

It is true that complainant was to pay her share as per the agreement for purchase of machinery. However, it is stated before us that she is prepared to contact the suppliers to supply the machineries in case a guarantee is given by the opposite party to the extent of the amount of loan agreed to be advanced towards the machineries and after fixture of the machinery and test production, the amount is agreed to be paid by it direct to the suppliers. This proposal of the complainant is very fair. We direct the opposite party to give a guarantee to that effect indicating the loan sanctioned for machineries where it would be stipulated that after test production, the supplier will be paid the price of the machineries to the extent of the amount of the loan sanctioned in that regard. In case the price rise would be covered within the range of contingency sanctioned, the same shall also be paid by the opposite parties so far as machineries are concerned.

ON an application filed by the complainant, a guarantee shall be given. Before payment, however, opposite party shall be satisfied that the amount has actually been invested. The guarantee shall be given within three weeks from the date of application. With the aforesaid directions, the complaint is disposed of. Complaint disposed of.