Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation vs RAJU LAL TAMRAKAR

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained a loan for Rs. 1,90,000/- from the petitioner in 1990 for setting up a motor winding and repairing works at Bhilai, District Durg, now in Chattishgarh. Two instalments amounting to Rs. 60,000/- were released in two instalments in June and October, 1993. When the complainant did not avail of further instalments, he was reminded during the years 1994 and 1995 to avail of the balance loan amount to which as per record a reply was sent by the complainant on 8.3.1995 that on account of some dispute, he is unable to avail of the balance amount as also unable to pay the amount due to petitioner and requesting the petitioner to accord full exemption from the interest amount due. After mutual discussions and negotiations, a mutual settlement was reached between the parties according to which the complainant was to repay the principal amount of Rs. 60,000/- in two instalments on 14.11.2000 and 10.12.2000. This was paid, but in the meantime complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner for non release of balance amount of loan. This was paid, but in the meantime complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner for non-release of balance amount of loan. This complaint was dismissed in view of the settlement with the proviso that the petitioner discharge the complainant from the mortgage deed, executed by the complainant on 11.5.1995 and 17.5.1993 within two months of the order. On an appeal filed by the complainant, State Commission allowed the appeal and awarded Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant, break up of which is Rs. 7,000/- charged for preliminary/pre-operative expenses, Rs. 12,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, petitioner has filed the revision petition before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondent/Complainant remaining absent despite notice.

What we see, it is not disputed that loan of Rs. 1,90,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant by the petitioner, which included Rs. 7,000/- as pre-operative expenses. Two instalments of loan were disbursed in 1993 after which the complainant got embroiled in a dispute in a Court of Law regarding the land on which the unit stood. We fail to understand as to under what circumstances anybody could have disbursed any instalment ? What we see is to the contrary, that in 1994 and 1995 it is the petitioner who is chasing the complainant to come, complete the formalities and get the loan instalment. In the meantime, interest had become due. Complainant had become a defaulter. His request for exempting from payment of interest and rescheduling repayment of loan was not agreed to. It is the failure on the part of the complainant which is the cause of delay, if any in release of instalment and once the one-time settlement takes place, for only repayment of interest and completely exempting repayment of principal amount, the settlement should have subsumed any other litigation. This is what District Forum did. In our view, the State Commission misunderstood the amount of Rs. 7,000/-. It was not the amount charged by the petitioner for preliminary/pre-operative expenses. This figure was part of the total loan amount having been used by the complainant before sanction of loan say for travelling, any project report, etc. State Commission in our view erred in ordering return of the amount. Non-availing of loan was on account of problems faced by the complainant for which petitioner cannot be faulted. They will release the loan instalment, if the charge is created for the instalment amount and there is no irregularity in the account. Of the latter, there is no dispute, the complainant was a defaulter; of the first there is no proof on record that any application was made for release of instalment. The picture got further distorted when the petitioner found out that instead of motor winding unit, the complainant has set up a fabrication unit. The may be material or otherwise; after the one-time settlement, the complainant should have no locus to agitate any further point especially when the whole interest amount due from 1993 till December, 2000 has been waived off. We see no justification in the State Commission awarding any compensation.

AS a result of above discussion, this revision petition is allowed. The order of the State Commission is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. Keeping in view the facts of the case no order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.