BANK MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK vs B.RAVI BABU

THE Manager, Syndicate Bank, Gudlur has preferred this appeal against the order dated 23.7.1997 passed by the Prakasam District Forum at Ongole in O.P. No. 105/1996 directing him to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent herein who is the complainant in the said O.P. together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the order till the date of realisation and also costs of Rs. 300/-.

THE case of the complainant before the District Forum was that he is a Post Graduate, that he was selected by the District Industries Centre for establishing a Type Institute at Gudlur under Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana Scheme in which he is eligible to a loan of Rs. 75,000/- from the appellant Bank, that when he approached it, the appellant Bank refused to sanction loan to him and that therefore, he suffered loss and inconvenience. He approached the District Forum and filed the complaint O.P. No. 105/1996 requesting for appropriate directions. After receiving notice of the complaint, the opposite party Bank filed counter before the District Forum denying all the allegations made in the complaint and contending that the complainant has not sent any quotation to it that the complainant has never approached it, for sanction of loan, that the complainant has not opened any account in it and that the complainant has not complied with the procedural formalities.

At the time of enquiry, the complainant examined himself as PW 1 and got Exs. A-l and A-2 marked in support of his case. The opposite party Bank Manager has filed his affidavit.

AFTER considering the material on record, the District Forum held that the opposite party Bank unreasonably refused to give the loan to the complainant and thereby committed deficiency in service. Accordingly, the District Forum passed the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence to show that the complainant approached the opposite party Bank for sanction of loan, that the complainant has not opened any account in the opposite party Bank, that the failure of the complainant to produce any quotation for the supply of type machine and other equipment shows that the complainant has not approached the opposite party Bank and that since the question whether or not loan should be granted to the complainant is with in the discretion of the opposite party Bank, the District Forum is not right in directing payment of compensation for not sanctioning the loan. We see sufficient force in this contention. There is no evidence to show that the complainant sent any quotation to the opposite party Bank or that the complainant opened any account in the opposite party Bank. Merely because he was selected by District Industrial Centre for establishment of Type Institute, the complainant cannot, as a matter of right, ask for a loan from the opposite party, Admittedly it is with in the discretion of the Bank either to grant or not to grant loan depending upon viability and business prospects of the Institute to be established by the complainant. Accordingly, we hold that the order of the District Forum is not sustainable. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed but without costs in the circumstances of the case. Appeal allowed.