CANARA BANK vs SAMSUDDIN KHAN

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.1.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sultanpur, in Complaint Case No. 180 of 1998.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is a handicapped person. He carries on the business of making boxes, tankies, etc. and also repairs the same. Under the scheme of Prime Minister''s Rojgar Yojana he applied for taking loan from the Nagar Palika. After completing all the formalities he move an application for a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. THE loan was sanctioned by the Nagar Palika and it was sent to the Bank for encashment. THE complainant approached the Bank and after completing all the formalities the complainant also signed the documents which were prepared by the bank authorities. THE bank authorities assured him that he will get the loan soon. After a lot of running to the Bank, he was told that some compliance is still to be done by the complainant for which the papers have been sent to the Pariyojana Adhikari, Sultanpur. When the defects are removed and the papers are received the loan was to be sanctioned to him. It is further alleged by the complainant that after the defects were removed the file was again sent to the Bank. The complainant continued to go to the Bank but the employees of the Bank did not grant any loan to him. In the 2nd week of March, 1998 when the complainant again went to Bank to take the loan he was told that he will not get the loan as the scheme has been abolished. The complainant has suffered mental shock. On account of this fact, the complainant has filed the complaint for a sum of Rs. 1,25,500/- including the loan amount of Rs. 90,000/- and rest of the amount as compensation.

The opposite party Canara Bank as admitted that the file was received after removal of the defects on 1.12.1997 the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana was abolished and as such the amount could not be paid.

THE parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. THE learned District Forum after considering the case of the parties come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on behalf of the Bank. It, therefore, directed for payment of Rs. 90,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental torture was allowed as compensation alongwith cost of Rs. 200/-. Aggrieved against this order, the opposite party, Canara Bank has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. The controversy in the present case is limited to a very short question. The question is as to whether the complainant could have been granted loan after the scheme was abolished on 1.12.1997. When once the scheme has been abolished the loan cannot be sanctioned. This is the clear position of law but the matter does not end here and requires further scrutiny in order to shift the responsibility on the Bank for the delay committed by its employees in not making the payment to the complainant. It is an admitted fact that application after removal of all the defects was received in the Bank on 26.9.1996. The scheme was abolished on 1.12.1997. For a period of about 14 months this application remained pending with the Bank and the employees did not pay the amount to the complainant for the reasons best known to them. This is a clear deficiency in service for which the Bank cannot escape its liability and the Bank will have to pay the compensation to the complainant for this deficiency. Keeping in view the fact that the complainant is a handicapped person and he required the money to expand his business so that he may earn his livelihood in a proper manner and to improve his financial position. The business plan of the complainant were demolished by the employees of the Canara Bank, therefore, in our opinion a sum of Rs. 20,000/- will be sufficient to compensate the complainant on account of deficiency of the bank employees. This amount of Rs. 20,000/- may be realised by the Bank from the employees who were responsible for not making the payment to the complainant in time and kept the application pending for a very long period of 14 months. The Bank may also take action against the employees responsible for making this delay on account of which the complainant was deprived for taking the loan from the Bank. The payment was not made and the complainant was harrassed for a very long time. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed in part. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed to the extent that instead of the order of the learned District Forum for payment of Rs. 90,000/-, the complainant will get a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation alongwith cost of Rs. 200/- imposed by the District Forum as well as cost of this appeal of Rs. 2,000/- from the appellant. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal partly allowed.