SAHYOG KRISHI VIKAS SEVA KENDRA vs ALLAHABAD BANK

IN this complaint filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complainant seeks the following reliefs : (i) That compensation be awarded to the complainant against the respondents on account of the following losses suffered by the complainant : (a) Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty lacs) on account of absolute dead investment of the complainant. (b) INterest on the above investments at the bank rate. (c) Depreciation on the above said investment. (d) Loss of business profits since the establishment of the project. (e) Loss of time, energy, expertise since 1984. (ii) Cost of the proceedings. (iii) Such other and further relief deemed fit and proper by this Hon''ble Commission may also be awarded to the applicant/complainant in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case."

THIS complaint is as vague as it could be. There are no particulars as to how complainant is claiming reliefs. The main allegation is that the opposite party Bank has rendered deficient service in delayed sanction of the loans and then recalling the amount of loan with interest accrued thereon from the complainant. It was submitted before us by the opposite party No. 1-Bank that it had filed suit in 1997 for recovery of Rs. 33,89,617.96 against the complainant which was earlier pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Mathura but later on transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal. Immediate reaction of Mr. Romy Chacko, learned Counsel for the complainant was that the suit filed by the Bank was by way of counter-blast inasmuch as the present complaint was filed on 15.7.1996. On 25.6.1996 Bank served a legal notice on the complainant seeking refund of Rs. 27,65,710.96. It is only after this notice of the Bank that the complaint was filed. Moreover, this notice of the Bank was replied by the complainant by its lawyer''s notice dated 23.7.1996. By this time this complaint had been filed. But there was no mention of filing of the complaint in that reply sent by the lawyer of the complainant. Rather by subsequent letter dated 9.8.1996 the Bank called upon the complainant to submit again rehabilitation package in detail so that same could be examined by the Bank.

It would, therefore, appear that the complaint itself was by way of counter-blast after the complainant came to know that the Bank was serious in filing a suit for recovery of the amount due to it from the complainant. Admittedly, proposal for establishment of a seed processing plant by the complainant was sanctioned by NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development) on 26.4.1990 and the limits were sanctioned by the Bank on 27.9.1990. The time in-between was taken for completing the formalities. Bank has pointed out that complainant committed deviations in building big sheds than approved by the NABARD and that perhaps is the reason for escalation of costs. By its letter dated 27.9.1990 Bank sanctioned term loan of Rs. 8.12 lakhs, cash credit limit of Rs. 6.00 lakhs besides overdraft facilities of Rs. 4.00 lakhs. Bank is right in its submission that it is under obligation in accordance with the considered credit norms to evaluate and impose terms and conditions on examining each case on its merits in order to secure repayment of loan amount from the proposed borrowers. Bank has further pointed out that since there was delay in completing the formalities by the complainant, it even granted ad hoc limit of Rs 2.50 lakhs to the complainant prior to the sanction of regular limit. Bank has pointed out that without seeking its prior permission complainant diverted the released cash credit, working capital facility and there-by committed breach of the accepted terms and conditions. Complainant failed in paying back the instalments with interest accruring thereon and also diverted funds. Bank, therefore, took a considered decision to regulate the loan amount and that led to issue of legal notice dated 25.6.1996. In the circumstances of the case, we find that it could not be alleged that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. This complaint, therefore, fails and is dismissed with cost Counsel fee Rs. 5,000/-. Complaint dismissed.