NIRANJANLAL vs BANK OF BARODA, JAIPUR

THIS is a complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') filed by the complainant against the opposite-parties ("the Bank" herein) on 17.10.89.

WE may briefly notice the facts stated in the complaint: The complainant has stated that he passed B . E. in 1973 from Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur. Thereafter, from 26.12.73 to 25.2.74 he received industrial training from Rajasthan Industrial and Mineral Development Corporation, Jaipur and upto 1978, he helped his father in the business of manufacturing soaps. The complainant submitted an application to the Bank for establishing small scale industry in the name of M/s. Mehra Bricks Industries, for the grant of loan under "Unemployed Svayam Rojgar Scheme". The Bank sanctioned the loan on 17.1.79 and in the acceptance letter, it was written that the "Branch should obtain certificate from the Collector about the conversion of the land from agricultural to commercial purpose and after obtaining opinion of the Bank''s advocate a (?) amount of loan should be disbursed." The copy of the acceptance letter was not made available soon after to the complainant and, therefore, he was not in know of the above condition. However, the Bank granted the loan to him for purchase of land and establishment of bricks kiln. The complainant started manufacturing bricks. The complainant deposited the marginal money by selling the ornaments of his wife. A few days after the establishment of the bricks kiln, the Tehsildar, Hindaun seized the machines, raw-material, building, land, well, engine etc. on 22.3.80 and entrusted them to some other person. The complainant has stated that on account of the negligence of the employees of the Bank, the agricultural land could not be converted and, therefore, he became unemployed and could not work the bricks kiln upto December, 1983 on account of the non-conversion of the land. The Bank levied interest and penal interest on the amounts of loan. After being relieved of mental agony, the land was converted after 3 years and he again thought of working the bricks kiln. He applied to the Bank for additional loan facility for re-starting the bricks-kiln as chimneys, tools etc. had almost destroyed. He was told by the officers of the Bank that he may start work and soon thereafter he will get the additional loan and that his work will not be allowed to suffer for want of money. The complainant has sold the remaining ornaments of his wife and started production of bricks. The complainant started work on the assurance of the Bank Officers. For running the bricks kiln, money was required about which several letters are said to have been written by the District Industrial Centre Development Commission (SSI), New Delhi etc., but no heed was paid. The complainant has further stated that he was informed that upto October. 1984, i.e. , for a period of three months, a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been sanctioned. This loan was sanctioned for the purchase of coal, and the bills were to be delivered to the Bank. Certain other conditions were also imposed, which it was not possible to be fulfilled. It has also been alleged that there was rainy season for three months and so the work of production of bricks remained suspended as bricks kiln could not work. The complainant did not purchase coal. He was required to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- within three months. The complainant has stated in para 17 of the complaint that the revised proposals were sent according to the instructions of the Bank from time to time. The complainant has given various acts of commission and omission, done by the Bank. It has been stated that it was the responsibility of the Bank to rehabilitate the sick industry by providing financial assistance, but instead of that, on account of the lapses of the Bank, it could not revive. In para 19 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that on account of wrong sanction of the loan, he has suffered losses, as detailed in sub-paras (Ka). (Kha), (Ga), (Gha) and (Ra). Allegations have been made in regard to the wrong adjustments of various amounts, which should have been credited in the complainant''s account by the Bank. The rate of interest charged by the Bank has been alleged to be excessive. Various other reliefs have been sought in the complaint and certain re-adjustments of the amounts have also been sought. A notice was issued to the complainant to appear before the State Commission to satisfy it that he can invoke the provisions of the Act. In pursuance of that, Mr. Prem Surana, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the complainant. We have heard Mr. Prem Surana, appearing for the complainant and have carefully considered the averments made in the complaint, document as also the various reliefs sought by him.

The only question that arises for our determination is whether the complainant can invoke the provisions of the Act for the grant of the various reliefs sought by him in the complaint.

"COMPLAINANT", "complaint", "consumer", "consumer dispute", "deficiency" and "service" have been defined in Sec. 2(1) of the Act. Sec. 14 of the Act deals with finding of the District Forum. Sec. 14(1), inter alia, lays down that if after the proceedings conducted under Sec. 13, the District Forum is satisfied that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the service, are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite-party directing him to take one or more of the following things enumerated in Sec. 14(1) of the Act. Sec. 14(1) (c) and (d) are as follows: "(c) to return to the complainant the price or as the case may be the charges paid by the complainant; (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded to the complainant for such injury or loss suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite-party. "

We have read the judgments rendered in Society of U. P. Consumers for Education and Actions v. Bank or Baroda, Lucknow and other (Original Petition No. 13 of 1989), and M/s. Jayal Iron and Steel v. State Bank of India and ors. (Original Petition No. 2 of 1989, decided on 31.8.89). The National Commission. New Delhi had laid down principles for guidance in such matters. The reliefs sought by the complainant are contained in paras 19 to 29 of the complaint. These reliefs cannot be granted by the State Commission established under the Act. Having given our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of opinion that this is not a case which legitimately calls for the grant of any relief by the State Commission. The grievances put forward by the complainant in the complaint are the matters in respect of which the complainant should approach a Civil Court for appropriate redress.

THE complainant is, however, at liberty to seek his relief by initiating independent proceedings as may be open to him in law. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed on this limited ground. Complaint dismissed.