PAWAN KUMAR BIRLA vs BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF BIKANER And JAIPUR

THE complainant Mr. Pawan Kumar Biria has filed this complaint on 12.2.90 against the Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur for the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,97,500/- as detailed at page 3 of the complaint. It has been alleged by the complainant that on 6.12.84 he was selected under ''Swarojgar Scheme'' by the District Industrial Centre, Bhilwara for grant of loan but the loan was not advanced to him by the opposite party and for the period of five years he suffered from mental tension and remained unemployed. He approached various authorities but nothing was done. Again in Oct., 89 he applied to District Industrial Centre, Bhilwara under Nabard Scheme but on account of malice, loan was not sanctioned and he was maltreated. Various efforts were made by him as detailed in para 4 of the complaint, but no direction was given for the sanction of the loan. According to the complainant, no dues certificate was wrongly refused. He has claimed as sum of Rs. 9,97,500/- as compensation. An unverified affidavit in support of the complaint was filed by the complainant. A notice was issued to the opposite party. THE opposite party filed its reply. It was stated that a sum of Rs. 3,915. 24 is still outstanding against the complainant (M/s. Pawan Kumar Birla) and this amount has of course become barred by time. It has also been averred that the proprietor of the firm is Shri Srilal Birla who is father of the complainant and as the account was (d''Vizn) a suit was instituted in the Court for the realisation of the amount which is still pending. A conditional no dues certificate was, of course issued to the complainant on 14.12.89. THE following certificate was issued to the complainant:

;|FI Jh iou fcM+yk ds Lo;a ds uke ij dksbZ cdk;k ugha gS fdUrq buds FIrk ds LokfeRo esa eSllZ iou dqekj fcM+yk uked QeZ esa gekjk cdk;k gS rFkk [kkrk d"Vizn Hkh gS A** The bank has written in its reply as under: ;|FI fcM+yk dks buds Lo;a ds FIrk dh bl d"Vizn ns;rk] budh lafnX/k usd fu;rh rFkk vU; vifjgk;Z dkj.kksa ls eq>s lqfo/kk iznku djk ikuk lEHko ugha Fkk rFkk buds lkFk fdlh izdkj ds nqO;Zogkj dh ckr Hkh ,dne vlR; ,oa fujk/kkj gSA**

The complainant FIled a reply to the reply of the opposite party on 12.6.90. On being put to the complainant whether he wants to adduce any evidence in support of the complaint, he stated that he does not want to produce any evidence. Thereupon, Mr. J.R. Gurjar stated that the opposite party also does not want to produce any evidence. It was, therefore, recorded that the parties do not want to produce any evidence, and they submit that the complaint may be decided after hearing the arguments. Arguments were heard on 12.7.90. The complaint was posted for dictation of orders on 13.7.90. After the arguments were over and the order sheet to that effect had been written and the Branch Manager of the opposite party had gone away, an application was submitted by the complainant that he may be given some time to support the complaint. Order could not be dictated on 13.7.90. It has been posted for dictation of orders today. Nobody is present on behalf of the parties. It may be stated that on 12.7.90 Mr. Pawan Kumar Birla, complainant and Mr. Rameshwar Dayal, Branch Manager (taking over) were heard.

WE have carefully considered the complaint, the reply thereto and the rejoinder to the reply. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party failed to provide loan under ''Swarojgar Scheme'' and it created various obstacles, as a result of which loan was not sanctioned to him and this resulted in mental agony, unemployment and financial loss. For this, he has quantified the compensation to Rs. 9,97,500/-. In this connection guiding principles have been laid in M/s. Jayal Iron Steel v. State Bank of India and other (Original Petition No. 2/89 with Miscellaneous Petition No. 23/89 for directions decided on 31.8.89 by the National Commission, New Delhi), Society of U.P. Consumers for Education and Actions'' v. Bank of Baroda, Lucknow and others (Original Petition No. 13/89 decided on 23.8.89 by the National Commission, New Delhi), M.L. Joseph v. State Bank of India, Trichur (Original Petition No. 12/89 decided by the National Commission). These decisions were respectfully followed by the State Commission in Ram Kripal Bhargava v. The Chairman. Union Bank of India and others (Complaint Case No. 11/89 decided on Sept 25, 1989). An appeal was preferred to the National Commission. In Ram Kripal Bhargava v. Union Bank of India and others (First Appeal No. 28/89 decided on March 16. 1990)=I (1991) CPJ 23 (NC) that National Commission dismissed the appeal observing as under: "It is for the Bank to decide whether a particular party is eligible for credit within the framework of the credit policy laid down by the Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India namely whether the project to be financed is viable. The would be borrower is credit worthy, the history of his past performance as a borrower in honouring his obligations for repayment of his loan liability, the obligation of the Bank to provide credit where improvement works are undertaken by a farmer from his own resources even though as the items or works may be eligible for bank credit, entitlement of a farmer to credit where there is admitted delay on the part of the farmer to undertake the sowing operations in time. More importantly, for providing further credit, it is for the bank to satisfy itself there has been a bona fide credit loss due to vagaries of whether and weather the borrower is a defaulter or not. It will be open to the commission to substitute its judgement for the decisions to be taken by the banks for giving bank credit. If there is any evidence of proved abuse of exercise of their authority for giving credit by bank officials redress is to be sought from the officers of the bank in their echleons. The Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India who have laid down the guidelines and norms for bank credit. The commission cannot overlook the fact that the financial viability of the Banks would be seriously affect and the well credit system will collapse if it is not ensured that the amounts advanced will be recovered in overwhelming majority of cases and the defaults are kept to the minimum. It will be for the bank to decide the risks, it should undertake balancing who is interested and under for promotion of agriculture. "

THERE is another decision of the National Commission rendered in Smt. Asha Sharma v. Union of India and others (Original Petition No. 42/89 decided on April 6, 1990) The National Commission made the following weighty observations: "The commission also has no doubt that it is for the Bank to satisfy itself whether an applicant for the Bank''s Financial assistance is the credit worthy, the project to be financed is technically feasible and economically viable, that the applicant has requisite managerial capability to manage the production unit; it has also to take a view regarding the marketability of the product. "

Considering all the facts of the case, the Commission has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there has been no deficiency in the service the Bank Renders and is expected to render to its customers. After dismissing the petition the National Commission observed : "The commission feels constrained to observe that the complainant has approached the Commission without adequate justification, may frivolously, perhaps because no Court fee is payable in the proceedings instituted before the Consumer Forums. "

AT the risk of repetition, it may be mentioned that the complainant has inflated the claim for compensation to the extent of Rs. 9,97,500/- without specifying the amount of loan which he wanted to obtain from the Bank under the "Swarojgar Scheme". The observation made by the National Commission hereinabove are aptly applicable to the case on hand.

KEEPING in view the principles laid down by the National Commission in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the complainant under Sec. 14(1) of the Act, on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.