NAND KISHORE BHARDWAJ vs Punjab National Bank

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ''Act'') against the judgment and orders dated 17.4.1997 and 8.7.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Lakhimpur Kheri in Complaint Case Nos. 203/1996 and 299/1997 respectively.

THE case of the complainant/appellant is that initially a loan for Rs. 1,00,000/- was applied for in the year 1994 under the Prime Minister''s Self Employment Scheme and in response thereof the respondent No. 1 sanctioned the loan of Rs. 85,000/- on 25.1.1995 against the application of the appellant for establishing the Cotton Bandage Industry. As desired, all the necessary formalities were complied with but the respondent No. 1 deliberately and intentionally delayed in providing the sanctioned amount with the result the business of the appellant got damaged and ruined and the scheme of the Government for employment of educated unemployed youth in question could not be completed. On the other hand, the stand of the Bank is that whatever recovery is being made, is made according to the procedure and in view of the terms and conditions. The learned District Forum after perusing the material and hearing the submissions allowed the Complaint No. 203/1996 directing the respondent to make a payment of Rs. 13,224/-.

Aggrieved against the same, the complainant has come in appeal.

MR. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Counsel for the appellant and Sri Venkat Raman, Counsel for the opposite party have been heard quite at length and entire record has been perused. Initially there was a request for granting time to the respondent as still they have not put in appearance. Being of the view that the matter can be decided after hearing the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, accordingly advised so which was accepted and the arguments were heard.

THE main grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the decree holder is that the Bank did not make the payment of Rs. 10,000/- which has been awarded by the learned District Forum as cost within the time granted and as such they were entitled for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- along with the rate of interest which is admissible to the Bank while realizing the loan. It was also argued that the terms and conditions were not complied with by the loaner Bank and as such there was no right to recover the loan. We have perused the impugned judgment and order. On perusing the impugned order it gives an impression that the order has been written in the most haphazard way which is not a welcome sign. Initially it has not been written completely under what head Rs. 10,000/- was awarded. How 60 instalments could be fixed by the Forum, that has also not been explained. Order on the face is not acceptable. A sum of Rs. 82,776/- has already been paid by way of the loan. THE grievance of the appellant is that instead of paying the loan amount in lumpsum, the loan was paid in meagre instalments of meagre sums. We are not possessed of the terms and conditions under which the loan have been given. All that is clear is that there was a scheme of loan for rehabilitation and employment of educated unemployed youth under the scheme of Prime Minister''s Self Employment Scheme. The Bank alone sanctioned a sum of Rs. 85,000/- although the request for a grant of a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Now it appears that the loan money has not been paid and the appellant is threatened of issuance of coercive recovery proceedings. It is not proper at this stage to state about the justification. The order in question is allowed to stand subject to the modification that the award of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in the event of non-payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation is not liable to be maintained. Thus, no recovery of Rs. 10,000/- by the complainant/appellant can be made. The appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.