N.V. DEORAS vs Bank of India

ACCORDING to the complainant, this is the glaring instance of the financing institutions throttling small scale industrial units by not only unreasonably withholding the monetary help for the purpose of nursing unit, but rather finishing the same by recalling the monetary assistance already advanced to the said industrial units. The complainant claims to be one of the victims of this vicious approach on the part of the Bank of India in this case. The complainant was granted loan facilities under "Educated Unemployed Scheme" for setting up electronic SSI unit for manufacturing Radios, Tape- recorders and other consumer electronic items in the name of M/s. Dansatte Electronics in the year 1981 by Bank of India, Mahim Branch, Mumbai. The unit was financed to the extent of 70% by the said Bank, but as the said unit became sick shortly thereafter the Bank gave a small nursing package in the year 1985 and another nursing package in the year 1987. The complainant unit has been accepted as a sick unit by the Bank of India as well as by State Directorate of Industries for which the necessary certificates were issued. However, with the additional finance, the unit functioned well for three years from 1987-1990 and was looking for good days in the course of time. Surprisingly, in the month of March, 1992 when all the accounts relating to various loans, discounting facilities, etc. were within the sanctioned operating limits, the Bank suddenly recalled the advances and further freezed the account leaving 13 employees jobless and the complainant starving. Due to this sudden recall, the orders in hand had to be abandoned or cancelled by the complainant and further anticipated orders had to be delisted. The unit was left with raw material parts used for completing its orders became useless for the complainant unit. The entire advance was insured by the Reserve Bank of India under Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Corporation scheme. The Bank ignoring the RBI instructions and also the above scheme, proceeded to liquidate the assets of the complainant in July, 1993. The complainant found that the Bank had contravened the RBI guidelines in respect of interest and also other formalities before calling upon the complainant to square up all the accounts. The Bank charged higher interest than stipulated by the RBI, recovered the term loan within one year as against stipulated three years causing cash crunch. On account of shortage of cash flow the orders in hand remained unfulfilled, the proposal of diversification for manufacture of T.V. and two-in-one had to be abandoned, the request for finances from 1990 onwards were turned down and advances were recalled unilaterally without following the prescribed guidelines by the Reserve Bank of India.

ACCORDING to the complainant, the total amount disbursed by way of principal amount in the Cash Credit Account and the Term loan was Rs. 2,19,803.92 ps. whereas the interest recovered was Rs. 10,25,663.35 ps. The present outstanding amount has been quantified at Rs. 6,98,794.48 ps. This is the instance of the Bank overcharging the interest and still claiming the principal amount. The rate of interest chargeable to the complainant was 10% and further this interest should have come down from the date the unit was declared sick by the Bank and State Directorate of Industries. The complainant has referred to various guidelines in regard prescription of interest, recovery of loans from the sick SSI units as prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. It is also stated that the financial projections given by the complainant at the time when the first assistance was given in 1981 turned out to be true in the later part. The period of six years in regard to Term loan made the burden of Term loan heavy being at the amount of Rs. 3,84,196/-, out of the fresh cash credits limit of Rs. 4.89 lakhs Bank siphoned out term loan of Rs. 3,84,196/- leaving the uncalled amount for working capital at Rs. 1,04,804/-. There was thus loss of orders to the tune of Rs. 25,34,319.20 ps., which could have earned the gross profit of Rs. 6,33,534.80 ps. @ 25%. The Bank also refused to accept the bills drawn on M/s. Skywaves Electronics Pvt. Ltd. It was expected mat me working capital would be generated by discounting hundis and obtaining finances. This would have enabled the complainant to rotate the finances for supplying 100 sets of TV and could have make the turnover of Rs. 19,53,600/- in a year. Similarly another order from M/s. Avineet Electronics Pvt. Ltd. for supply of two-in-one pieces also could not be gathered although the said company had opened letter of credit for Rs. 50,000/-. The Bank refused to discount the letter of credit initially, but sanctioned the amount of Rs. 37,500/- which was inadequate. The letters of request for extending finances from time to time were declined by the Bank and in consequence complainant lost orders for supply of Radios, T.V., Two-in-one, etc. By the letter dated 28.3.1992, the opposite party Bank called upon the complainant to repay all the loans although at this time all the loans were within the sanctioned limits. The recall of advances was totally unwarranted in view of the RBI directions. All the previous dues were duly cleared and it was not proper on the part of the Bank to have refused to discount bills issued by Jetking. The complainant has claimed refund of excess interest of Rs. 5,80,245.63 ps., loss arising out of pending orders Rs. 6,33,534.80 ps., loss arising out of ruined career of Rs. 3,50,000/-, loss turnover of Rs. 35 lakhs per year from 1987-90 @ 10% on Rs. 70 lakhs i.e. Rs. 7 lakhs. In all Rs. 25,39,779.40 ps. The complainant has deducted the pending claim of the Bank of Rs. 6,98,794.48 ps.The net claim preferred is Rs. 18,40,984.92 ps. Here we may state that the complainant has not claimed Rs. 2,75,999.80 ps. being the salary payable to workers, because the workers have not claimed the salary. This has been opposed by the Bank of India in its written statement filed in April, 1994. The prime contention of the Bank is that the Bank has filed the Suit. No. 2701 of 1993 against the complainant for recovery of their claims about the loans and other facilities advanced to the complainant and in that light of the matter, the complaint cannot be entertained. The further story of the Bank is that the complainant was given the cash credit against hypothecation of stock facility to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- in December, 1981. The same was enhanced to Rs. 45,000/- in September, 1985 and further enhanced to Rs.4,89,000/- in December,1987.This included other facilities including bills discount, letter of credit facility, etc. The aggregate of all the facilities was Rs. 13.17 lakhs and the repayment of the amounts under the said credit facilities was secured by hypothecation of stocks belonging to the complainant. In March, 1991, the working capital to the extent of Rs.37,500/-was extended to the complainant. The complainant from time to time accepted the interest charged by the Bank and that the interest was charged @ 13.50% to 17.50%. The suit in the High Court is for the recovery of aggregate amount of Rs. 7,45,916.90ps. The National Commission in such cases has held that the matter should be referred to the Civil Court when it involves complicated questions requiring detailed examination and cross-examination of several witnesses and also reference to accounts books. The question of advancing finance to the sick units should be agitated in the Civil Court and not under the Consumer Protection Act. The interest was charged according to the agreement between the parties and the allegations regarding the sudden withdrawal of loans by the Bank is not true as much as performance of the complainant unit was unsatisfactory for a period of about three years or more. The Bank has a discretion to sanction or to withdraw the monetary assistance given to the units. The decision regarding refusal to accept the bills drawn on Skywaves Electronics, Avineet Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was the policy decision of the Bank and that is taken on the basis of the performance of the complainant unit with the Bank. Term loan No. 1 for Rs. 78,000/- was given on 25.8.1981 and repaid on 27.5.1987. Similarly term loan No. 2 for Rs. 37,000/- was sanctioned on 25.8.1981 and was repaid on 4th June, 1987. Thus the loans were recovered after the period of three years. The cancellation of orders by Nelco is the internal affair of the complainant and Nelco and need not be ascribed to the recall of credit facilities. The High Court by its order dated 17.8.1993 has appointed the Court Receiver for making inventory of the hypothecated securities and further granted injunctions restraining the complainant from dealing with his properties and for these reasons, the complaint is not sustainable.

Here we may indicate that the matter proceeded ex-parte before the State Commission and the State Commission by its order dated 20.10.1994 awarded the claim of Rs. 13,50,174.23 ps. against the Bank and in favour of the complainant and the same amount was to carry interest of 18% p.a. The matter was then taken to the National Commission.

IN First Appeal No. 766 of 1994, the National Commission was pleased to remand back the matter to the State Commission holding that the written statement filed by the opposite party was not considered by the State Commission. The true story was that the notice was issued by the State Commission on the Bank and the 30 days were to expire on 24.4.1992. The notice was served on 25.3.1992 but the Bank appeared and filed written statement on 6.7.1994, without explaining the delay and asking for condonation. The attitude of the Bank was certainly not fair but also the same is consistent with the principle that the parties should not be nipped in bud on technical grounds. The National Commission was pleased to remand back the matter and it is in accordance with this order that the above written statement has been considered. At the outset, we may state that the complainant was granted loan from 1981 onwards and that when the recall was ordered by letter dated 28.3.1992, the outstanding amount under various heads are as follows : Facility Limit Outstanding Cash loan 4,98,000/- 4,88,995.29 Bill discount 5,70,000/- 4,50,799.00 Import letter of credit 2,00,000/- -NIL- Loan 37,500/- 33,784.00

THIS would clearly show that the outstandings were within manageable limits and that they did not exceed the permissible limits. The next question which we would like to emphasise is that the Bank was bound by the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India regarding interest rates. The RBI guidelines have statutory value and are binding on the Banks under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1929 as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gowda, II (1994) BC 614 (SC)=Judgments Today 1994 (7) Supreme Court Page 87, and we find that the Bank does not dispute this aspect of the submission. The necessary circulars relating to Industrial and Export Credit Department issued by the Reserve Bank of India are on record and we find that the preamble clearly suggest that the directive was issued on March, 1985 regarding interest terms and advance loans, etc. The report of the working group on the modalities of implementation of the priority sector and the 20-point economy programme by Banks prepared by the Reserve Bank of India is also on record. The report of the committee to examine legal and other difficulties faced by the Banks and financial institutions in rehabilitation of sick industrial unit undertakings and remedial measures including change in law prepared by the Reserve Bank of India is also on record. Circulars relating to the Industry and Export Credit Bank for the period July, 1986 to June, 1989 are also on record. Looking to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, we feel that the following details which can be extracted from the above rules and circulars need to be noted. It is stated that the term loan shall be a loan, which is repayable within a period of not less than three years. Regarding the interest rates, it is stated that when the scheme is for providing self-employment to educated unemployed youth, the interest chargeable is 10% for backward districts and 12% for other districts, but when we look to the other class, it states that when the advances to persons coming in the category of self employed to educated unemployed, the lower interest is chargeable. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the interest could be charged to the complainant unit could not exceed 10%.

THE learned Counsel for the Bank has suggested that in all the accounts signed by the complainant during relevant years, he has agreed to the interest charged by the Bank which ranged between 14-18%. We feel that when the Reserve Bank of India mandates with the SSI units run by the unemployed educated, the Bank cannot take shelter under the terms of agreement. THE Bank should charge the interest permissible under the guidelines and any breach thereof can invite action for refund of the excess interest. THE learned Counsel for the complainant has urged that the person in need of finances have to agree to the stipulated interest rates by the Bank but the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India are not- withstanding the terms of agreement. THE guidelines will certainly supercede the contracted rate, else the banks should exploit the constituents on the basis of extreme financial need. We are, therefore, of the view that the bank is entitled to charge only 10% interest. When we peruse the written statement by the bank, we find that the bank has clearly admitted that the interest charged is between 13.5.% to 17.5%. This would be clearly beyond the permissible claim. THE complainant has tendered schedule of the interest charged which show that the interest charged is between 13-24%. THE Chartered Accountant Mr. Satish Shetry has carried out the detailed audit on the basis of vouchers and precise calculation and has stated that the Bank has charged Rs. 7,67,849.54 which the Bank is liable to refund. In the complaint however, the complainant has claimed Rs. 5,80,245.63 and we believe that the complainant is entitled to this amount and not to the amount suggested by the Chartered Accountant. Regarding the amount about the loss of orders, the complainant has prepared the schedule. This has also been audited by the said C.A. THE details are stated in the annexed schedule. THE loss arises on account of loss of orders by the Nelco, Skywaves and Avineet Electronics. THE total order which was lost by the complainant came to Rs. 25,34,139.20 ps. on the basis of which profit amount comes to about Rs. 6,35,534.80 ps. According to the Auditor, this is the most legitimate claim. Out of this amount Rs. 71,068/- relates to diversification. Now diversification mean changing the production fine and enter into the new production. To work out profits on the guess work in such a case could not be appropriated. It would also not be proper. to work out the profit @ 25% in such items. THE auditor of course must have been aware of the prevailing market range but we feel that this 25% should be sealed down to 15% which would come to around Rs. 4 lakhs. In our view, the complainant is entitled to this amount.

THE complainant has also filed the list of wastage materials. He has quantified this amount at Rs. 2,07,461.80 ps. This fact cannot be disputed but we would have been satisfied had the complainant sold those articles in the market and furnished us the value of salvage. THE price of salvage would have been available to the complainant, but all the same we are not inclined to dismiss this claim only and we feel that on that count the complainant should be awarded Rs. 1.25 lakhs. Sudden stoppage of finances is bound to bring to standstill the operations of the complainant unit and the natural consequences would be that some material is bound to remain unused and not readily disposable. Under that count we award the above amount. We may now turn to the case of the opposite party-Bank of India. Their main grievance is that on account of pendency of Suit No. 2701 of 1993, the State Commission is barred from dealing with complaint. Heavy reliance is placed on the case of M/s. Special Machines, Kamal v. Punjab National Bank and Others, decided on 22.12.1989 (xerox copy of the judgment is tendered on record). As per that ratio, the National Commission has observed that when the crux of the grievance of the complainant is that the Bank arbitrarily failed to provide the complainant financing facilities which were badly required for small scale industrial unit and that the Bank arbitrarily insisted on bifurcation of the petitioner''s accounts from one head to several heads, insisted on margins, insisted on daily drawing powers and compelled the complainant to divert money from the working capital to F.D.Rs. in alleged violation of all the Banking Laws and norms and in contravention of the guidelines issued by the RBI and the Government of India from time to time. The best course left for the complainant was to seek his remedy before the ordinary Civil Court and not before this Commission. Relying on this judgment and also the ruling of me National Commission in the case of Industrial Products v. Punjab National Bank and Others, the learned Counsel for the Bank has contended that it would not be proper for the State Commission to consider the complaint and that the complaint should be dismissed with further liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court. Apart from that, it is also contended that the High Court has granted injunctions to the complaint in a notice of Motion No. 1927 of 1993. The complainant has been restrained from dealing with the properties and further the Court has appointed a Receiver to liquidate the affairs of the complainant unit. When we go through the plaint before the High Court and also the interim order passed by the High Court in the above suit, we feel that the said claim is strictly related to outstanding amount of loan under various credit facilities. Here we are confronted principally with the arbitrary action on the part of the Bank to recall the amount. The letter relating to the recall is dated 28.3.1992. As per that letter, the Bank has claimed that the facilities were not being utilised satisfactorily. Many bills drawn on M/s. Jetking Electronics have remained unpaid and that all their efforts in recovering the bill amounts have proved futile. The cash credit account was also. stagnant and the overall picture was that the performance of the complainant in regard to the above facilities has not been satisfactory. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below from that letter. "In view of the unsatisfactory conduct of the account, we have no alternative but to recall the advance facilities granted to you and we hereby call upon you to arrange to repay the entire dues with upto date interest within 30 days from the receipt of this letter, failing which we shall be constrained to take necessary action as deemed fit, entirely at your risk and responsibility, as to the cost and consequences."

Before appreciating the impact of this letter, we have recorded the undisputed facts and that is, the Bank by its certificate dated 6.3.1989 has declared the complainant unit as sick unit and was to be under nursing programme of the Bank for rendering Government assistance during the rehabilitation period. The Director of Industries by certificate dated 21.4.1989 has issued a similar certificate about the unit being sick. It therefore remains an undisputed fact that the unit had become sick in 1989. In such a state of affairs, our attention is drawn by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the dues have to be recovered after following the procedure. In the report of the Committee about remedial measures, it has been provided that, "To ensure that this speedy process is not abused by the authority in the Banks by initiating action against a party due to any difference of opinion, etc., it may be provided, by way of administrative instructions, that recovery proceedings should not be initiated by the Bank officials without obtaining approval of a higher Competent Authority. Details in this regard may be worked out by the Boards of the Banks." In the above letter dated 28.3.1992, we do not notice any action on the part of the Bank about consultation with the Competent Authority. There is also no recommendation by the Board of the Bank. Further requirement is that when the advances have to be recalled and that too from the sick units, as per circulars relating to the Industrial & Export Credit Department, a procedure exists amongst the financial institutions with regards to sick units whereby the decision for recall of a loan is taken only after a case has been discussed at Senior Executives'' meetings/Inter-Institutional meetings and unanimity as to the course of action is arrived at. Further, such decisions are taken by the financial institutions only in those cases where all revival efforts have failed, or where the unit has lost its basic viability due to faulty or obsolete technology, or where the needed fresh infusion of funds and dose of reliefs and concessions are disproportionate in relation to the existing involvement, or where the management is recalcitrant and is not prepared to effect changes which are required for nursing the unit to health. In this regard, in terms of the policy guidelines issued by the Government of India/Ministry of Industry, in February, 1982, (a copy of which was furnished to all Banks with our circular (ICD No. SIUD.BC.25/C.446(SIU)A- 82 dated 28th April, 1982), detailed reports on such units have to be submitted to Government for a decision by the concerned Administrative Ministry within a period of three months (or such extended period as may be specified by Government) as to whether the unit should be in difficulty in funding the unadjusted interest debited to the cash credit account over a substantial period in the past, particularly where there are numerous operations in the account during the same period. Such difficulty/ divergence of view results in delays in identification of the funded interest amount and core irregular portion.

THE circulars further provide as follows: "It has been decided that hereafter, in all cases of sick and weak units, the excess of outstanding balance in the cash credit accounts over the drawing power, realistically worked out as on the relevant date of application of the package, should be treated as the irregularity in the accounts. As regards splitting of the irregularity into funded interest and the core portion to be funded separately. Banks are advised that initially the interest charged to the account from the beginning of the accounting year in which the unit started incurring cash losses continuously should be worked out and where the aggregate amount so worked out is less than the irregularity in the account, the difference should be treated as the core portion, to be converted into working capital term loan. Where, however, such interest exceeds the irregularity, the entire irregularity should be construed as arising out of charging of interest and funded. Even units against whom a Bank has filed a suit for recovery of its advances, should be treated as ''sick'' or ''weak'' units, as the case may be, until the amount involved is either written off from the Bank''s books or recovered."

We must also refer to the R.B.I. guidelines on interest rate application. The operators of large advances have to be charged interest at the rate not less than the ceiling rate. Larger advances as quantified at Rs. 25 lakhs. Now, in this case, complainant is not a person falling in larger advances and the Bank is therefore left with discretion but to charge less interest, which in this case comes to 10%.

WE further refer to the scheme formulated by the Reserve Bank of India in the constitution of Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Corporation Scheme. The said Corporation is the substitutory of RBI and the entire small scale industries advances so far as the complainant is concerned is fully secured under this scheme inasmuch as the respondent Bank is competent to recover full principal amount of the loan given to the complainant. The Bank of India was thus fully insured so far as the principal amount of loan given to the complainant is concerned. Now with such full proof insurance about the repayment and with the above guidelines, it was absolutely not necessary for the Bank to have recalled the loans abruptly as envisaged in the letter dated 28.3.1992. The letter as indicated above does not at all refer to the formalities complied by the Bank before initiating the recovery proceedings. When we questioned the learned Advocate for the Bank, he could not enlighten us about the recovery procedures suggested in the above guidelines nor could deny the existence of guidelines of RBI. There is no iota of evidence to show that the performance of the complainant was scrutinised and that the inevitable conclusion was that the unit had become non-viable. We may here observe that the recovery of interest in excess of 10% was not at all permissible and if that amount is deducted the Banks claim, possibly the entire claim could have been satisfied by the complainant and there was therefore no necessity to be panicky about the solvency of the complainant. The Bank unnecessarily resorted to recovery of advances given to the complainant. The National Commission in the case of Mikes Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, reported in II (1995) CPJ 97 (NC)=1986-96 NC & SC Consumer Cases 3187, has observed that suit filed by the Bank prior to the complaint about recovery of its dues outstanding against the complainant cannot be a bar to the complainant in persuing the claim in respect of damages and loss on account of negligence and deficiency in the rendering of the Banking service. The consumer could not be allowed to suffer merely because the Bank has chosen to go to the Court. The National Commission has also observed that deficiency in service by freezing the credit facilities malafidely would result the Bank being guilty of negligence and deficient in rendering Banking service. In that case, the financial assistance was withdrawn because the complainant did not pay the bribe to the Manager and that is why the Bank withheld the financial assistance causing ruination of the complainant. Now, in this case the Bank could not be oblivious of the above guidelines of the RBI. The learned Counsel for the Bank has not suggested that the Bank is not bound by the guidelines of the RBI. If that be so, it was obligatory on the part of the Bank to have undergone the procedure of replanning the memorandum, about the unsatisfactory performance of the complainant, non-viability of the unit, consultation with the Competent Authority and as a last resort, recovery of the loans. None of these factors have been considered by the Bank and the Bank has indiscreetly called for the advance given to the complainant. We feel that the decision is arbitrary and not warranted by any circumstances on record. The sudden withdrawal of funds smacks, mala fides on the part of the Bank. When the RBI wants the proper nursing of the sick SSI units and rendering as much help to the sick unit as possible, action on the part of the Bank was not at all called for. The other redeeming feature was that the entire principal amount was covered under the above Guarantee Scheme. We may briefly go through the correspondence that has been transpired between the Bank and the complainant. The complainant had written 5 to 6 letters which have been ignored by the Bank. The request made by the complainant has not been considered. There are letters dated 6.12.1990, 12.12.1990, 25.2.1991, 26.4.1991, 24.7.1991 and l6.8.1991, wherein the complainant has made repeated request for release of the financial assistance. We have observed that advances and the loans were within the limits of sanction at all times. They were also secured against assets of the unit viz. flat, unit premises and stocks in schedules A, B, C, etc. In one letter the complainant out of desperation has stated that the Bank is refusing even to negotiate the letters of credit filed by the customer companies. In the letter dated 12.1.1991, the amount of orders by Nelco, Avineet, Skywaves Electronics, Jetking Electronics are mentioned. The turnover for the years 1987-90 is also given. The request has been made for extending limits for discounting the bills. Similarly, the complainant agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month towards the satisfaction of the dues. These letters are dated 25.2.1991, 26.4.1991, 24.7.1991 and despite of these requests, the Bank heavily came upon the complainant in denying financial assistance. We do not feel satisfied with the claim of the Bank that the position of the complainant had become panicky and that the Bank was likely to lose all the advances. Had the complainant be given sufficient time, the Bank could not have been required to have recourse to the recovery proceeding and also filed a suit. This action on the part of the Bank was totally destructive of the Government policy of encouraging young entrepreneurs in trade and industry.

NOW so far as the suit is concerned, we feel that the suit is for recovery of the Bank dues and has nothing to do with the deficiency in the Banking service as pleaded by the complainant. The claim of the Bank is well documented and it can be pursued by the Bank but that suit does not come in the way of the complainant in canvassing deficiency in Banking service. In the guidelines of RBI, we have referred above, there is a clear reference to a clause that even if the suit is filed by the Bank for recovery of its advances, the unit should be treated as sick or weak as the case may be until the amount is unpaid or retained. With such great latitude given by the RBI, the Bank has hurried through in disregard of guidelines for recovering the amount. We do not look upon this action on the part of the Bank as reflection of the dwindling financial condition of the unit. We, therefore, feel that the suit cannot bar the claim of the complainant.

AFTER having considered the right of the complainant to recover loss of interest, loss on account of his inability to comply the orders and loss of certain articles, we feel that the entire career of the complainant is ruined. He has been put in financial distress and his all future is in dark and it will be practically impossible for him to revive and get set in life. He has, therefore, suffered mental agony and physical harassment. On that count, we are inclined to award Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant. We further award the cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. In all therefore the claim of the complainant comprises of Rs. 5,80,245/- rounded to Rs. 5,80,000/- about excess interest, Rs. 4 lakhs towards the loss arising out of failure to complete the orders and Rs. 1.25 lakhs for loss of material, Rs. 1 lakh for physical harassment, etc. and Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost. In all claim comes to Rs 12,15,000/-. Since the Bank has filed the suit, the Bank is competent to recover in case of success against the complainant and we do not give any assessment at this stage since that is the non liquidated claim containing the element of running interest. We, therefore, hold that the Bank must pay Rs. 12,15,000/- with interest @ 12% to the complainant from the date of the complaint till recovery. Accordingly, we pass the following order : ORDER "Opposite party-Bank shall pay Rs. 12,15,000/- with 12% interest thereon from the date of the complaint till actual payment to the complainant." Complaint disposed of.