SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH vs U.B.I.DEGANGA BRANCH

THIS is an appeal against an order dated 29.8.95 passed by Barasat District Forum in D.F.C. Case No. 31/93. The Appellant/complainant filed the aforesaid case before the District Forum demanding the payment of balance of amount sanctioned by the respondent/opposite party viz., United Bank of India, Deganga Branch being the balance of the sanctioned amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant''s case in the Lower Court was that he was sanctioned an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as business loan for starting Diesel Pump Set, repairing shop. Out of this amount a total amount of Rs. 16,330/- (Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty) was disbursed by the Bank in two instalments. The complainant accordingly prayed for the release of the balance of amount of Rs. 8,534/-. As the Bank neglected to sanction the amount the complainant filed the aforesaid case alleging deficiency of service against the Bank.

THE Bank contested the case before the Forum stating that the complainant had never the business for which the loan was granted to him. THE Bank further stated that on an inspection held by them it was found that the complainant was actually not carrying the business viz., Diesel Pump Set, Repairing shop. A report of the Bank Official concerned has been submitted by the Bank in this respect. It was also supported by another certificate from the Pradhan of Noornagar Gram Panchayat. The District Forum after hearing both the parties and considering documents placed before them held that the Bank''s contention was correct and accordingly it dismissed the complaint.

The present appeal has been filed agains the said order of the District Forum.

THE point for determination in this appeal is if the decision of the District Forum was correctly made and if not, what relief, if any, the appellant is entitled to. DECISION Admittedly a total amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) was sanctioned by the Bank as business loan to the appellant on the usual terms on 30.6.92. From the papers filed it appears that repayment of the loan was to be made @ 315/- p.m. starting from the third month after disbursement. Admittedly, also two instalments of the loan have already been realised by the Bank. It is argued by the learned Advocate of the Bank that the appellant has not repaid a single paise after the grant of the loan and that he has not been carrying on the business for which the loan was granted. Accordingly a Bank official personally went to inspect the business of the appellant after prior intimation and he found that the shop was closed. From his report dated 15.3.93 it appears that he enquired about the alleged business of the appellant from the neighbouring persons and was convinced that he was not conducting any shop for which he took the loan. The Bank has also filed a certificate dated 6.12.93 from the Pradhan of Noornagar Gram Panchayat in which the said Pradhan has stated that the appellant is not carrying out the activities for which the loan was sanctioned.

BEFORE the Forum no document was filed by the appellant to rebut the evidence of the Bank that an inspection was held and that the appellant has not utilised the Bank''s money for the purpose of which it was sanctioned by the Bank. However, the appellant has filed certain certificates from the Pradhan of Swatipur Gram Panchayat and Noornagar Gram Panchayat stating that he has been conducting a diesel pump set, repairing and engineering work at Sohai Bazar but, all these certificates were issued on 30.8.95 and 31.8.95 while the judgment was passed in the Forum dated 29.8.95. So, none of these documents can be considered by the Commission at this stage. There is no explanation why such documents could not be filed before the District Forum. There is also no affidavit from the appellant to challenge the documents filed by the respondent/Bank. Apart from this, we also do not find any justification in releasing any fund in favour of a party which has neglected to make payment of the Bank demands according to the terms of the agreement. Considering all these facts we think that there is no reason to disturb the order of the District Forum. This appeal therefore, fails. The appeal be dismissed on contest. There will however, be no order for cost in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.