BANARASI KRUPA STEEL INDUSTRIES vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation

THE complainant who was proprietor of firm in the name and style of Banarasi Krupa Steel Industries has taken training in Centre for Entrepreneurship Development for establishing his own industrial unit. THE complainant who belongs to Scheduled Caste applied for plot of land to Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, opponent No. 1 herein for setting up his industrial unit. THE complainant was allotted plot No. 145 admeasuring 1000 sq. mts. in Jamvali G.I.D.C. Estate No. II at Gondal. Complainant paid Rs. 4,750/- for the land, Rs. 1,083/- for stamp and registration and Rs. 11,657/- for interest. Complainant in all paid Rs. 59,490/- to opponent No. 1 for the plot allotted to him. Opponent No. 1 has, however, not given him facility of electricity, water and gutter for running his industrial unit inspite of several representations made to it. Opponent No. 1 has also not given concession which the complainant is entitled to. According to the complainant, opponent No. 1 is bound to make arrangements for facilities such as electricity, water, gutter and roads. Opponent No. 1, however, failed to give these facilities inspite of notice given to it through complainant''s Advocate on 13.12.91. It is alleged that on account of delay on the part of opponent No. 1 in giving above facilities, the complainant has not been able to obtain loan sanctioned to him by opponent No. 3, Gujarat State Financial Corporation.

THE complainant was given to understand that on his furnishing certificate issued by Centre for Entrepreneurship Development, he would be granted term loan, cash subsidy and other benefits by opponent No. 3. Complainant, therefore, made application for term loan to opponent No. 3. Opponent No. 3 vide its letter dated May 31, 1989 agreed to provide to the complainant a term loan of Rs. 4,12,000/- on the terms and conditions annexed to the letter. According to the complainant, the loan was sanction under special scheme applicable to SCs from May 31, 1989. THE entire loan amount of Rs. 4,12,000/- was to be disbursed within six months i.e. before November 30,1989. THE complainant was also entitled to subsidy of Rs. 94,000/- and special subsidy of Rs. 23,000/- payable to persons belonging to SCs. Thus, according to the complainant, he was entitled to subsidy of Rs. 1,17,000/-which was payable to him by November 30, 1989. Opponent No. 3 had by its letter dated May 31,1989 sanctioned subsidy admissible to the complainant. It is alleged that before disbursement of loan or the subsidy, opponent No. 3 took his signatures on blank papers. It is further alleged that opponent No. 3 has not disbursed the entire amount of loan and subsidy as agreed and, therefore, it is guilty of deficiency in service. The complainant has alleged that after the loan was sanctioned by opponent No. 3, without supplying and explaining the necessary information and without finding practical solution, has deducted an amount towards interest from the loan amount. It is submitted that the Public Relations Officer of opponent No. 3 has not given any guidance in regard to the loan sanctioned by opponent No. 3. The complainant had, therefore, to enter into correspondence and go personally to the office of opponent No. 3 to understand the terms and conditions of the loan. The attitude of opponent No. 3 has not been cooperative and the complainant had to run from pillar to post.

The complainant has alleged that as against the sanctioned loan of Rs. 4,12,000/- opponent No. 3 has advanced loan of only Rs. 1,43,500/- for establishing his industrial unit. The complainant has invested his own capital of Rs. 1,67,500/- and borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from his relatives and thus invested in all Rs. 1,97,500/- for establishing his industrial unit. According to the complainant, he has invested his entire life savings in establishing the industrial unit. The complainant has alleged that as he was not getting co-operation from the opponents he got tired and offered to surrender his unit to opponent No. 3. He also gave notice to opponent No. 3. Opponent No. 3 had given reply to this notice through its Advocate Manubhai Shah. According to the complainant opponent No. 3 has adopted inconsistent stands in regard to the aforesaid loan.

ON the above grounds, the complainant has prayed that opponent No. 3 be directed to disburse the remaining amount of loan of Rs. 2,38,500/- together with interest @ 25% for escalation of price and balance of subsidy of Rs. 1,25,750/-. The complainant has also prayed that opponent No. 1 be directed to provide him with facilities of electricity, water, gutter and roads and until such facilities are given, opponent No. 1 should be directed to pay him damages and also give benefits of various schemes to complete his project. In the alternative, the complainant has prayed that the opponents be directed to pay to him a sum of Rs. 5,90,850/- together with 18% interest p.a. The amount of Rs. 5,90,850/- claimed by the complainant includes investment of Rs. l,97,500/-madeby him, loss of profit of Rs. 60,000/-, damages of Rs. 2,50,000/- for mental agony etc., Rs. 7,350/- for expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for legal expenses. Opponents No. 1 and 2, though they appeared, have not filed any written statement. Written statement of opponent No. 3 is at Exh. 9. Opponent No. 3 has admitted that it had sanctioned term loan of Rs. 4,12,00/- to the complainant. It is also admitted that the complainant was entitled to get subsidy if he complied with all the terms and conditions under which the loan was sanctioned. The complainant had also executed an agreement in that regard. Opponent No. 3, however denied that complainant was made to sign blank papers. Opponent No. 3 has further contended that there was no delay on its part in disbursing the loan amount to the complainant. On the contrary, the complainant was repeatedly requested to withdraw the loan amount before the time limit expired. However, the complainant did not come forward to receive money and also the amount of subsidy within time. The time limit for withdrawing the loan was extended at the request of the complainant. However, the complainant did not come forward to receive the loan amount within the period so extended. The complainant was specifically told that no further extension would be granted to him if the loan amount was not withdrawn with the extended time and that disbursement of the remaining amount of the loan was liable to be cancelled. The complainant was also informed that he would be required to pay additional interest on the amount which was disbursed during the extended period. Opponent No. 3 has stated that it does not know about the investment made by the complainant in his industrial unit. It is submitted that opponent No. 3 is not at all responsible for the sate of affairs in which the complainant finds himself. In fact, the complainant himself is responsible for such situation inas-much as he was not prompt enough and he failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the loan. So far as facilities of electricity, water, gutter and roads are concerned, it is submitted that opponent No. 3 is not responsible for the same. On the above grounds, opponent No. 3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

WE fail to see how the complainant could have filed common complaint against opponents Nos. 1 & 2 and opponents Nos. 3 & 4. Opponents Nos. 1 & 2 are not concerned with the loan transaction between the complainant and opponents No. 3 and 4. Similarly opponents No. 3 and 4 are not concerned with allotment of plot to the complainant or the facilities of electricity, water, gutter and roads. The complainant ought to have filed separate complaints against opponents No. 1 and 2 and opponents No. 3 and 4. Therefore, there is clearly misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The complainant has not produced any agreement which he has entered into with opponents No. 1 and 2 so far as allotment of plot No. 145 in Jamvali G.I.D.C. Estate No. II at Gondal is concerned. In absence of agreement, we find it difficult to hold that opponent No. 1 had to provide facilities of electricity, water, gutter and roads to the complainant in plot No. 145. It appears from the notice given by the complainant''s Advocate to opponent No. 1 that he had applied to the Gujarat Electricity Board for electric connection. It would, therefore, appear that even according to the complainant, he had to obtain electricity directly from the Gujarat Electricity Board. However, at the same time in the said notice, the complainant has stated that it was the responsibility of opponent No. 1 to make arrangements for water, gutter and electricity which has not been made. As observed above, in absence of agreement with opponent No. 1, we cannot hold that it was the responsibility of opponent No. 1 to provide facilities such as water, gutter, electricity and roads to the complainant. In fact, there is no document in regard to the allotment of plot No. 145 or the facilities to be given by opponent No. 1. Besides the agreement, the complainant must have entered into correspondence with opponent No. 1 in regard to the facilities to be given to him. However, in that connection the only document which we have is the notice given by the complainant''s Advocate. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not in a position to hold that it was opponent No. 1 who was responsible to provide the aforesaid facilities to the complainant. So far as loan transaction is concerned, it appears that opponent No. 3 had sanctioned term loan of Rs. 4,12,000/- to the complainant. This loan was to be disbursed as per the terms and conditions annexed to the letter sanctioning the loan. Under condition No. 10, loan was to be disbursed progressively on furnishing the necessary documents/papers required for distribution of the loan to the extent of assets acquired and on complying of applicable terms and conditions of the letter and on completion of the legal documents and formalities to the satisfaction of opponent No. 3. The complainant had, in fact, received loan of Rs. 1,43,000/- from opponent No. 3. He had also received subsidy in proportion to the loan disbursed under the terms and conditions of the loan. It is clear that it was the complainant who did not withdraw the balance of loan although he was called upon to do so by opponent No. 3. Complainant was entitled to subsidy only in proportion to the loan taken by him. In the aforesaid circumstances, we fail to see how the complainant can find any fault on the part of opponent No. 3 in not disbursing the balance of the loan or balance of subsidy amount. Entire loan was to be withdrawn within six months from the date the loan was sanctioned. As the complainant failed to do so, he was called upon by opponent No. 3 to withdraw the loan. The complainant, however, failed to withdraw the loan inspite of letters written to him. It was at the request of the complainant that time for withdrawing the loan was extended by opponent No. 3. The complainant, however, failed to withdraw the loan amount during this extended time. It is true that opponent No. 3 had demanded interest at the higher rate on the loan taken during the extended period. But the question of payment of interest at higher rate has not arisen because the complainant has failed to withdraw the loan amount. Under these circumstances, opponent No. 3 cannot be held guilty of breach of the agreement or deficiency of service.

IN the light of the above discussion, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss this complaint. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.