Punjab and Sind Bank Office at Transport Nagar Kanpur vs Surinder Singh Bhatia

THE complainant had taken a loan of Rs.1,50,000/-on 18.12.1984 for purchasing truck. THE last payment towards the re-payment of loan was deposited by the complainant on 28.11.1990. THE Government of India in compliance with judgement passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court had directed Reserve Bank of India, considering the plight of 1984 riot victims, for charging 6% interest on loan. Accordingly, RBI had issued directions to all the affiliated banks on 19.9.1990 for implementation of the scheme. THE scheme published by Government of India with the help of RBI is effective since 17.9.1990. As per definition given in the said scheme in Rule 2, the benefit under the scheme is available to all persons who are affected in 1984 riots.

THE complainant claimed benefit under the said scheme, which was denied by the OP/petitioner as a result of which, the complainant had filed complaint before the District Forum. THE District Forum held that the complainant was entitled to the benefit under the scheme and directed OP to charge only 6% interest on the loan and refund excess interest and other amounts charged with payable interest as also costs of Rs.5,000/-. This order was challenged by the OP/Bank before the State Commission. The State Commission after perusal of the scheme held that the riot affected persons would be liable to pay interest on the loan amount @ 6% p.a. The complainant had taken loan in the year 1984 and he had not discharged his liability of repayment when the scheme came into force on 17.9.1990. The State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that under the scheme petitioner had to determine whether the case of the complainant was a deserving case for granting benefit under the scheme and one of the considerations which was to be taken into account was that the borrowers did not have the capacity to pay interest at the rates prescribed on advances. He also pointed out that the decision was required to be taken at branch level by a Committee consisting of the Manager, the senior most officer and senior Clerk who were required to scrutinise all these cases and decide these with regard to the cases falling in the powers of Branch Manager. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 11.9.1991 that since the complainant had been repaying the instalments towards repayment of sanctioned loan regularly, the complainant was capable of repaying the loan. This letter does not conform to or fulfil the requirement under the scheme. There is nothing to show whether the case of the respondent was scrutinised or examined by the Committee as required under the scheme. The reasoning given in the letter dated 11.9.1991, by itself, is not sufficient to deny the benefits of the scheme to the complainant and the denial has not only been arbitrary, but it is not based upon the criteria mentioned in the scheme.

IN view of the above, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, as we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of two Fora below. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.