MANAGER, U.B.I. vs PARIMAL PRAMANIK

BY this appeal the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.93 passed by the Learned District Forum, Purilia has been assailed inter-alia on the ground that the judgment of the learned Forum is bad in law and facts and that the learned Forum did not consider the case of the appellant in its proper perfective and that the loan being a term loan bank instead of paying the loan amount in cash issued a delivery order to the supplier M/s. Sujay Readymade Stores Proprietor of Sujay Bhakat and that the finding of the learned Forum that the Bank Official created back dated papers in collusion with their man Sujay Bhakat and in their over jellousness forged the certain LTI on some documents including delivery order was unwarranted and that the learned Forum below totally lost sight of the fact that the LTI given by the respondent No. 1 was duly attested by Prodhan, Saringdih Gram Panchayat and that no adverse inference should have been drawn by the learned Forum against the appellant for non-examination of Dulal Chandra Majhi, Prodhan, Saringdih Gram Panchayat and that no adverse inference against the appellant should have been drawn by the learned Forum below for non-production of Reserve Bank of India Rules particularly when the documents filed by the bank was sufficient to support the contention of the bank and that the learned Forum should not have attached undue importants on the report submitted by B.D.O. which was biased and also that the documents was kept in dark of alleged enquiry and as such the said report was not binding on it and that the finding of the learned Forum below about the negligence and deficiency in service by the bank officials is untenable in la w and facts and that the provision of the Consumer Protection Act and Rules thereunder has had no application in the instant case and that the petitioner is not a consumer as defined under the Act and the learned Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint case in limini. Accordingly the appellant bank prayed for to set aside the judgment and order of the learned District Forum, Purulia. The respondent No. 1 only entered appearance in the appeal and contest the appeal very streneously. The respondent No. 1 contended that the case of appellant was fully considered by the learned District Forum, Purulia and the appellant miserably failed to prove the case by orally and documentary evidence the appellant. It was contended that the appellant bank could not produce any Law or Rule authorising it to disburse loan to a third party and that the bank also could not prove that any loan was paid to allege M/s. Sujay Readymade Stores and the evidence disclosed that there was no existence of any said firm M/s. Sujay Readymade Stores. It is further alleged that there was no such person named as Sujay Bhakat as such the findings of the District Forum, Purulia was based on facts and surrounding circumstances to come to the conclusion that there was a deficiency in service and the negligence on the part of the bank to pay the loan amount to third party. It was also contended that there was sufficient evidence before the learned District Forum, Purulia to conclude that the back dated documents were manufactured by forging the L.T.I, of the respondent No. 1. It is also contended that there is no cogent evidence before the learned District Forum, Purulia that there was a direction of Reserve Bank as alleged by the appellant bank. It was genuinely held by the District Forum that the appellant bank committed fraud by not disbursing the amount of loan to the respondent No. 1. .It is also alleged that there is no terms and conditions of the loan agreement empowering the appellant bank to disburse the loan amount to a third party without the knowledge and consent of the respondent No. 1 who is the beneficiary of the loan transaction. It was also contended that there was no ground to dispute the report of the B.D.O. and the B.D.O. was duly examined by the appellant who could not elicit any material from the B.D.O in cross-examination and that he said responsible officer was a biased and favoured this respondent No.1 a poor villagers. It is also alleged that the statement of B.D.O. upon enquiry revealed that there is no existence of M/s. Sujay Readymade Stores in that locality. It is contended that the appellant bank in its written objection and evidence before the Learned District Forum, Purulia admitted that the sum of Rs. 8,300/- was sanctioned in favour of the respondent No.1 and not against M/s. Sujay Ready made Stores or Sujay Bhakat. It is alleged that the storing set up by the appellant was unworthy of any credential and was rightly rejected by the learned District Forum in its proper perspective of the case directing the appellant bank to pay the loan amount along with the compensation to the appellant. The appellant prayed for dismissal of the appeal with exemplary cost. JUDGMENT

HAVING heard the learned Advocate of both the parties and carefully going through the Judgments and Order passed by the learned District Forum, Purulia we are of opinion that each and every aspect of the case has been given due consideration by the Forum and then arrived at the final conclusion. The case before the learned District Forum, Purulia was not only decided relying upon documentary evidence but elaborate oral evidences of different witnesses were recorded before the decision of the case We have also gone through the judgment of the learned Forum below and giving our considered thought over the matter we don''t find any wrong in the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum in Miscellaneous (Forum) Case No. 29 of 1991. We are in full agreement with the finding, judgment and order of the learned District Forum, Purulia.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed on contest and the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum, Purulia in Miscellaneous (Forum) Case No. 29 of 1991 is hereby affirmed.

WE award a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 payable by the appellant bank within a month hereof. Appeal dismissed.