CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(2003) 07 NCDRC CK 0079

INDIAN ELECTRIC AND TRANSFORMER CO. vs United Bank of India

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 7 July 2003 · Citation: 2003 3 CLT 699 : 2003 4 CPJ 189

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.C.Datta , S.Majumder , D.Karformas J.
RESULT
Complaint dismissed
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 349 words
1.

THE petitioner approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for not disbursing the loan to him. He has claimed a sum of Rupees twenty lacs as compensation.

2.

IT appears that the petitioner applied for loan from the O.P.-Bank and obtained cash credit facilities to the tune of rupees eighty thousand and odd. He also applied for term loan facility which was sanctioned by the Bank upon certain undertaking given by the petitioner. The opposite party has come with an objection to the effect that since the petitioner did not comply with the formalities in the sanction letter they did not disburse the loan amount. Their further case is that the petitioner having failed to liquidate the cash credit overdraft, they have instituted a money suit being No. 23 of 1993 before the Fourth Court of Assistant District Judge for a sum of Rs. 1,76,000.00. The Bank submits that the documents filed by them would make it crystal clear that the Bank was always eager to disburse the loan but the petitioner having not complied with the terms and conditions of the loan, no disbursement could be made. The Bank has filed series of papers to show that they were ready and willing to disburse the loan to the petitioner. But the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Commission as to why he could not comply with all the requirements demanded by the Bank. IT appears that the Bank has instituted a suit for recovery of money from the petitioner and the suit is still pending. Under the circumstances it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the Bank betrayed deficiency in service. Rather it can be said that the petitioner was not eager to obtain loan. There is no satisfactory explanation by the petitioner as to why he failed to comply with the requirements. So it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. In our view, the case is without any merit and accordingly it is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.