Sobran Singh vs District Consumer Forum

THIS appeal has been filed by Sri Sobran Singh, r/o Village Sadi Bhadi, District Ghazipur against the judgment and order dated 16.11.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghazipur in Complaint Case No. 100/1997.

THE facts of the case are that the appellant/ complainant Sri Sobran Singh had applied to the State Bank of India for a loan to install the Pumping Set. THE State Bank of India initially sanctioned a loan of, Rs. 5,500/- for Pumping Set and Tank and the rest amount, of loan of Rs. 10,000/- was withheld by the Bank. THE Bank had informed the complainant that as soon as the subsidy of Rs. 2,000 /-is received by the Bank then the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be released. THE complainant then requested to the Bank that either he should be paid Rs. 10,000/- in cash and if it was not possible then the amount of Rs. 5,500/- should be treated as loan but the Bank Authorities informed the complainant that since a loan of Rs. 15,500/- had been sanctioned nothing more or less can be done. THE complainant wanted the cash payment but the State Bank of India diverted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- so sanctioned to the shopkeeper to supply the Motor. THE shopkeeper informed him that only an amount of Rs. 8,750/- was given to him and an amount of Rs. 1,250/- was taken away by the officials of the Bank. Thus an amount of Rs. 15,500/- only was sanctioned to him as loan on which a subsidy of Rs. 2,000/- was available. Thus he owed to Bank only an amount of Rs. 13,500/- and since an amount of Rs. 1,250/- was not given by the Bank to the shopkeeper who supplied the Motor, therefore, the total amount of loan comes to Rs. 12,250/-. THE complainant represented to the Bank and to other Authorities but recovery proceedings were initiated against him and an amount of Rs. 10,450/- was recovered from him. He lodged a claim before the District Consumer Forum, Ghazipur. In the written statement, the State Bank of India, opposite party refuted the allegations of the complainant. The complainant was selected for Free Borring Scheme and his case was recommended by the Block Development Officer to State Bank of India, Saidpur. The project cost was Rs. 15,500/-. A subsidy of Rs. 1,500/- was admissible by the Government on the said loan and, therefore, net loan sanctioned was of the amount of Rs. 14,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 5,500/- was paid in cash to the complainant and the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- was given to M/s. Arti Electrical and Machinery Stores, Saidpur from whom the complainant had procured the Electric Motor of 5 H.P. This amount was paid to the said M/s. Arti Electrical and Machinery Stores through a cheque after due satisfaction of both the parties.

The District Consumer Forum, after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that a loan of Rs. 15,500/- was sanctioned to the complainant on which a Government subsidy of Rs. 1,500/-was available Thus the total loan to be recovered by the Bank was of the amount of Rs. 14,000/- and the complaint was dismissed.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the complainant has come in the appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum, Ghazipur. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel of the two parties and have also gone through the relevant documents placed on the appeal file. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant was not present in the District Forum and in his absence the order was passed. A perusal of the judgment and order of the learned District Consumer Forum shows that the complainant was not present on most of the dates and the order was passed in his absence. The complainant after one month of the date of judgment and order gave an application before the District Forum that the case may be restored. The District Forum on 16.12.1999 passed an order that since the matter has been decided on merits the application for restoration was rejected. The appeal was presented before this Commission on 11.5.2000. There is an application on record on behalf of the appellant that due to ill-health and financial reason he could not prefer appeal in time and, therefore, condonation for the delay was prayed. The application for condonation of delay has not been accompanied by any document like Medical Certificate, etc. There is, therefore, no substantial ground to accept this request of condonation and the appeal is time barred.

ON the other counts also the case of the complainant is that the amount of loan sanctioned was only Rs. 14,250/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,750/- was not given to him by the Bank. A perusal of the record goes to show that the loan sanctioned to the appellant was Rs. 14,000/- and an amount of Rs. 1,500/- was in terms of subsidy which is not included in the loan and the recovery proceedings for this amount of Rs. 14,000/- were initiated against the complainant under Agricultural Debt Recovery Act. There is no evidence which may go against the Bank that there has been any deficiency in service. It has not been proved by the appellant that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was not given to M/s. Arti Electrical Machinery Stores. It appears the complainant aggrieved of the fact that the recovery proceedings had been initiated against him by the Bank, lodged a claim before the District Consumer Forum. Therefore, on merit also the case of the appellant/complainant has not been established, in addition to the fact that the appeal is time barred. The judgment and order of the learned District Consumer Forum are perfectly alright and does not need to be interfered with. In the circumstances, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the judgment and order are liable to be confirmed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 16.11.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghazipur in Complaint Case No. 100/97 are confirmed. There will be no order as to cost. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.