SREE KANAKA DURGA HATCHERIES PVT. LTD. vs State Bank of India

MR. Justice J.K. Mehra, Member-This is a complaint wherein the complainant is seeking the following reliefs : (a) direct the respondent Bank to disburse the loan of Rs. 2.5 crores being the escalated cost of the project; or (b) direct the respondent Bank to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,42,000/- due to accumulated capital losses incurred on account of unconscionable and unexplained delay which amounts to deficiency of service; (c) award pecuniary damages actually suffered by the complainant by reason of the failure, negligence and omission to sanction and disburse the loan and interest on the same; and (d) pass any other order or orders as may be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.

IT is alleged by the complainant that they had set up a hatchery and wanted a working capital facilities and financial assistance from, inter alia, the respondent, State Bank of India. IT is alleged that State Bank kept exchanging correspondence and never disbursed the loan which it had sanctioned. On a query it was pointed out that the sanction letter is Annexure-I to the reply version of the State Bank. In the course of the arguments, it was pointed out to us by the Counsel for the SBI that decision was taken to sanction the loan and for the reason they had sent letter dated 10th January, 1992. On further query, it was clarified that said letter remained unacknowledged and unsigned by the complainant. This letter contained various conditions on which the loan was to be given. The last paragraph of the letter reads as under : "Please acknowledge on the duplicate copy of this letter token of your acceptance to the terms and conditions as detailed above." Not only this copy was never signed admittedly by the complainant, but the conditions contained therein for the grant of the loan also remained unfulfilled. We need not go into further details in this case but, to note that in various decisions, this Commission has taken a consistent view that refusal to rehabilitate or failure to provide credit or refusal to finance have been consistently held to be not amounting to deficiency in service. A reference may be made to the following decisions of this Commission : (i) Ashok Prabhakar v. State Bank of India, I (1993) CPJ 11 (NC). (ii) M/s. Arora Industrial Corporation v. UBI, I (1992) CPJ 115 (NC). (iii) Jagannath Meher v. SBI, II (1993) CPJ 147 (NC). (iv) Ramkripal v. UI, I (1991) CPJ 23 (NC). It is for the financial institutions really to decide whether to or not to enhance the facilities or even to sanction the loan. There will also be no deficiency in service if the loan is sanctioned by the Bank subject to certain conditions which remain unfulfilled on account whereof loan is not disbursed. However, in the present case, we find that according to the Counsel, even the sanction letter was not delivered to the complainant (as asserted by the Counsel for the complainant at the time of hearing). In that view of the matter, this sanction remains in the file of the Bank only and before proceeding any further, the Bank took a conscious decision to not to go ahead with grant of this loan. A situation like this, we are afraid, cannot be described as deficiency in service. In these circumstances, since there is no deficiency in service, this complaint cannot be entertained and is dismissed. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.