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

GRIEVANCE of Complainant is regarding deficiency in service of financing by Film Development Corporation of which opposite parties are the Managing Director and Chairman.

COMPLAINANT is producer of Oriya film "Basanti Apa" produced under the banner of Adisakti Ma Mangala Production, registered under ''EIMPA'' vide Regd. No. Cut/P/1623 dated 28-5-1982. After holding discussions with the Managing Director of Film Development Corporation complainant got assurance of soft loan and every cooperation, only after screening of rush print. COMPLAINANT then proceeded on his work and applied for soft loan to the Corporation in proper manner with application fee Rs. 10/- and processing fees of Rs. 200/- vide enquiry receipt No. 110, dated 7-8-1983 and No. 123 dated 14-3-1983. When rush print was ready Managing Director did not go through it in purview theatre in spite of repeated requests and delayed the same for 9 months. After 9 months the loan was sanctioned. But before release of loan amount, Managing Director cancelled the sanction for no fault of complainant, causing great suffering to him. Managing Director also did not give guarantee to avail Bank loan of Rs. 3 lakhs nor did he waive out the collateral security for availing loan from Film Development Corporation. Another grievance is that Managing Director did not release the 2nd scheduled shooted undeveloped negatives of the film for developing the same in M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd., Madras as it was kept as mortgage against hire charges of Kalinga Studios, although there was an understanding between the two parties previously to adjust the hire rent amounting to Rs. 20,622/- from the soft loan, or subsidy head. The authority of Kalinga Studios and Managing Director in connivance of each other harassed him in several ways. His booking of Camera Unit for 4 days shooting from 25-5-1985 to 28-5-1985 was cancelled by Kalinga Studio causing heavy loss. He was denied booking of editing machine for making censor script. The cheque bearing No. 162347 dated 3-6-1986 sent by Film Development Corporation towards soft loan was dishonoured by Vijaya Bank. After final sanction and release of soft loan the Corporation had remitted Rs. 55,000/- from its account to M/s. Prasad Laboratories, Madras for processing dues of the firm. But, vide letter No. PFL/PRV/85/578/88 dated 1-9-1988 of Prasad Laboratories account statement, it is mentioned that it have received only Rs. 25,000/- bearing D.O. No. BH/38405 dated 1-7-1986 from the Film Development Corporation. So complainant has difficulty in availing release of prints due to this reason. Opposite Party No. 1 also intentionally delayed 4 months in giving the print release order to complainant, as a result of which the release of the film was delayed, and he faced financial disaster. Protesting against the behaviour of Opposite Party No. 1, complainant addressed to Chairman, Film Development Corporation, Orissa, who is Secretary to Government, Industries Department but could get no justice. He also appealed for justice by putting forth his grievance before the President, and Prime Minister of India. Although he was assured of justice, nothing was done. Hence he filed this complaint in State Commission for adjudication and claims Rs. 9.91 lakhs as compensation. Opposite Parties in their counter and additional counter state that this complaint is not maintainable in this Commission and assert all the allegations as wrong and frivolous. They do not held themselves responsible for the loss of complainant. First of all, it was the complainant who could not arrange for the screening of edited rush print of the film in preview theatre of Kalinga Studio in scheduled time. Secondly, he did not execute loan agreement, when loan was sanctioned in his favour. Finally, after execution of loan agreement of 11-4-1985, the Corporation released loan amount of Rs. 1 lakh and sanctioned extra Rs. 50,000/- considering genuine difficulty on 19-2-1986 for which additional agreement was executed on 19-3-1986. The film was completed and considered on 17-11-1987 and was released on 10-12-1987 finally. As regards claim in respect of adjustment of hire rent of Katinga Studio from the soft loan and delay to allow him to release the exposed negatives for processing, it is asserted that it was only possible after execution of loan agreement and complying with other necessary formalities for release of loan amount. The bouncing cheque was due to some unavoidable circumstance and another cheque was issued in his favour on the same day i.e. on 17-6-1986 when it came to notice. Prasad Film Laboratory had been through two account payee drafts bearing Nos. 865688 and 529/86 on Vijaya Bank. So, opposite parties submit that there is no mala fide intention. Rather, they say, all the allegations are pleas taken by complainant to avoid repayment of soft loan for which the corporation filed a certificate case against him for realization of Rs. 1,68,266.15 paise with interest.

Service of financing is hired on promise to pay interest on the loan paid. Thus, complainant is a consumer. Then the service is not rendered as given out it is deficiency in service even though the declaration is not express, it is common that on the borrower fulfilling all requirements, lender is to pay the loan. When complainant did not execute the documents, Opposite Parties did not pay the sanctioned loan. Shortly after complainant fulfilled his part, loan was paid. There cannot be any deficiency in service on the facts and circumstances.

BOUNCING of cheque being dishonoured is no doubt a deficiency in service since on the cheque being handed over, a declaration was given by opposite parties that amount would be paid. Reason for dishonour of the cheque has not been disclosed by both parties to consider whether the dishonour was on account of negligence of Opposite Parties. It is asserted by Opposite Parties that on the same day the fact was brought to their notice, another cheque was issued. Hence on the facts and circumstances, though there was deficiency in service, it cannot be said to be on account of negligence for giving a direction to pay compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. Kalinga Studios Ltd. is a separate person. It provides infrastructure facilities to producers. Though Managing Director of Film Development Corporation acts as the Director in-charge of Kalinga Studios Ltd., as Managing Director Film Development Corporation he cannot be made liable for the deficiency in service of Kalinga Studios Ltd. Deficiency of service of Kalinga Studios Ltd. is of 1985. This complainant has been filed on 24-9-1991 much after six years. Claim against Kalinga Studio Ltd. is thus barred by limitation. In absence of Kalinga Studio Ltd. as Opposite Party to state its case and the claim being otherwise barred by limitation, we did not consider it profitable to issue notice to this company to state its case. Hence we have not examined whether the deficiency in service alleged in cancellation of hiring of Camera Unit is on account of negligence. Thus, suffering of complainant on account of deficiency of service by Kalinga Studio Ltd. cannot be redressed by this Commission.

IN result, complaint is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.