Ram Sewak vs GRAMIN BANK

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.1.1993 passed by District Forum, Shahjahanpur in Complaint Case No. 202/1992.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 10,000/- for electricity connection and construction of a Kothri and installation of a tubewell. THE tubewell was sanctioned to him under a scheme in which a discount of Rs. 1,500/- was given to the complainant by the Government. THE boring was also to be done. It is further alleged that the Shahjahanpur Area Gramin Bank agreed to advance the loan and the first instalment of Rs. 3,600/- was given for construction of a ''Kothri'' and for obtaining electricity connection. THE complainant completed electricity connection on 31.7.1991 on which the opposite party was requested for the second instalment. THE opposite party told that it shall be disbursed after the electricity connection is given. THE complainant wrote a letter to opposite party No. 2, Hydel Department for giving electric connection. THE electric connection was obtained on 29.7.1991. THErefore the complainant applied to the Bank for release of Rs. 6,500/- as second instalment of the loan. THE Bank Authorities demanded bribe which the complainant refused and the loan was not disbursed to him. THE complainant requested several times but nothing was done. Hence the complainant has prayed for disburement of the second instalment of the loan amounting to Rs. 6,400/- and Rs. 13,000/- as compensation. The opposite party contested the case of the complainant alleging therein that Rs. 10,500/- was granted as loan on 26.10.1989. It is further alleged that a sum of Rs. 2,800/- was paid in cash for purchase of bricks and Rs. 800/- was paid for purchase of cement and expenses of labour. The rest of the loan was to be disbursed after the construction of the ''Kothri'' and obtaining electricity connection by the complainant.

It is alleged that the ''Kothri'' was not constructed and hence the loan was not disbursed to the complainant. This fact was intimated in writing to the complainant and he was also asked not to misuse the loan obtained from the Bank. The Bank also requested for refund of the amount which was advanced as loan. No reply was given by the complainant. As the second instalment was for purchase of motor, it was not disbursed because there was no security for a motor in the absence of a ''Kothri''.

THE learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, directed for disbursement of the second instalment of Rs. 6,500/- only. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum, on the ground that the compensation of Rs. 13,000/- has not allowed.

NONE was present when the case was called even though both the parties were intimated of the date fixed. However, the respondent has filed written statement which has been perused. We have also perused the order of the learned District Forum. A perusal of the same will go to show that in order to solve the controversy regarding the construction of a ''Kothri'' and boring, a commission was issued by the learned District Forum. The Advocate visited the spot and from the report of the Commission it was clear that the Kothri was recently constructed. Keeping in view the facts of the case that the Kothri was not constructed by the complainant, as was required of him, in time, but was constructed later on, the learned District Forum did not grant any compensation to the complainant. Thus in view of the facts of the case the learned District Forum was perfectly justified in refusing to grant compensation to the complainant. There is no flaw in the order of the learned District Forum and no interference is required. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.