Punjab and Sind Bank vs NAMITA GHOSH

THE appeal is directed against the order of the Forum dated 30th December, 1999 directing the appellant who was the opposite party before the Forum to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. It was directed by the said order that this amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be set off against the outstanding dues till the date of the order.

THE complainant approached the Forum at Howrah praying for repayment of the sum of Rs. 75,000/- advanced by the Bank as loan by easy monthly instalments and prayed further for exemption of payment of interest upon the said amount. Her case in the complaint petition was that she carries on a proprietorship business under the name and style of M/s. Madura Engineering. On her approach to the Bank the latter sanctioned and granted a cash credit limit of Rs. 75,000/- for her business and she availed of the said limit. As security for the said loan the complainant hypothecated with the Bank, the plant, machinery and other movable assets of her business. THE complainant suffered various setbacks resulting in non-payment of loan properly and the dues accumulated to Rs. 1,05,194/-. THE complainant approached the Bank for repayment of the sum of Rs. 75,000/- by instalments with a prayer for exemption of interest. THE Bank having not obliged the complainant in making further payment of amount the complainant has brought this action alleging deficiency in service. The contention of the complainant was upheld and the Forum held that for non-supply of the bank statement the opposite party has plunged itself under the mischief of deficiency in service.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Forum the Bank has appealed. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Forum was not justified in decreeing the claim.

IT is not disputed that a huge amount is outstanding against the complainant. There has been a setback in the business and in consequence the complainant could not repay the principal amount and the interest accrued thereon. She approached the Bank for releasing further amount of loan but that was not granted. The Forum noticed that non-supply of bank statement is tantamount to deficiency in service. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there had never been any such request by the complainant for supply of bank statement. IT may be noted that the complainant was herself aware of the huge debt with the Bank. She has approached the Bank for payment by instalment. In our view the complainant being a defaulter, the Bank was within its right to refuse to sanction further amount of loan and as such it cannot be regarded as deficiency in service on their part. The grant of instalment payment is also in the discretion of the Bank. In our view the Forum was wholly unjustified in making the order which is required to be set aside. For the reasons aforesaid we allow the appeal on contest and set aside the judgment. Appeal allowed.