SANKAR PRASAD NAYAK vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA

THIS First Appeal is against the order dated 28.1.1993 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa in Complaint No. 115 of 1991. The State Commission by the said order dismissed the complaint of the Appellant-herein regarding deficiency in service in financing his Oriya Film by the Film Development Corporation of Orissa. Briefly, the facts are as follows:

THE Appellant proposed to produce Oriya film ''Basanti Appa" under the banner of Adisakti Ma. Mangala Production. He applied for a soft loan on 14.3.1983 to the Film Development Corporation of Orissa. According to the Appellant, the Managing Director of the Corporation sanctioned the loan only after nine months, did not waive collateral security for availing of the soft loan, did not give guarantee to avail bank loan of Rs. 3.00 lakhs and did not release the undeveloped negatives of the film - shot in the second schedule - for developing the same at M/s. Prasad Films Laboratories Ltd., Madras but kept it as mortgage against hire charges of Kalinga Studios. THE Appellant also contended that the booking of the Camera Unit was cancelled by the Kalinga Studios. THE cheque of the Corporation dated 3.6.1986 towards soft loan was dishonoured by the Vijaya Bank. THE case of the Complainant is that the Film Development Corporation intentionally delayed giving the print release order as a result of which the release of the film was delayed and he faced financial disaster. The Corporation contested before the State Commission the maintainability of the complaint and pointed out that it was the Complainant who did not arrange for the screening of the edited rush prints of the film for preview in scheduled time & delayed the execution of loan agreement for the release of the soft loan. It was admitted that bouncing of the cheque was due to some unavoidable circumstances and that another cheque was issued on the same day when the fact was brought to the notice of the Corporation.

The State Commission affirmed that loan financing by the Corporation for the consideration of interest was a ''service'' and hence the Complainant was a ''consumer''. In so far as the Complainant did not execute the necessary documents for payment of the sanctioned loan, the State Commission rightly held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Corporation in disbursing the loan. The Commission also held that since the Corporation issued another cheque on the same day when the bouncing of their earlier cheque was brought to their notice, no negligence on the part of the Corporation could be established. The State Commission had not examined whether the deficiency in service alleged in the cancelation of hiring of Camera Unit of Kalinga Studio was on account of negligence, since that Studio was not before them as an Opposite Party and also because the cause of action having arisen in 1985 was barred by limitation.

WE have heard the Counsels on both sides. The Appellant-Complainant has repeated his submissions which he made before the State Commission. Although his grievance is against the Film Development Corporation of Orissa and the Kalinga Studio Ltd., the Appellant has not taken any steps to implead the Kalinga Studio Ltd. as a party. In their reply, the Respondent-Corporation have filed copies of the relevant correspondence between them and the Complainant to show that whereas the Corporation had asked the Complainant to arrange the screening of rush prints for preview as early as on 4.5.1983, it was the Complainant who then personally requested for postponement. Through subsequent letters including a telegram on 6.9.1983, the Corporation urged the Complainant to arrange the screening of the rush prints. According to the Respondent, it was only on 12.1.1984 that the Complainant had intimated that he was ready with the edited length rush prints whereupon the preview Committee of the Corporation saw the edited rushes on 30.1.1984 and thereafter, the loan was sanctioned. However, the Complainant himself delayed the execution of he loan agreement with the Corporation which is a prerequisite for the release of the loan and completed the requirement only on 11.4.1985 after a period of 16 months from the date of sanction of the loan. The Respondent-Corporation has further mentioned that when it was found that the producer could not complete the film with the sanctioned loan of Rs. 1.00 lakh, the Corporation sanctioned on 19.2.1986 an additional loan of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the Complainant for completion of the film. We are satisfied that the Appellant was responsible for the delay (i) in the sanction of the soft loan by not coming forward in time with the rush prints for preview by the Corporation and (ii) in the disbursement of the sanctioned loan by not executing the loan agreement in time. Although the bouncing of cheque of a public sector organisation should not have occurred, we find that the position in the instant case was promptly rectified. Refusal by the Corporation of the request of the Complainant for waiver of collateral security for their soft loan and for extension of their guarantee for bank loan does not amount to any deficiency in service on their part as these are left to their discretion.

IN the light of the facts of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.