Syndicate Bank vs SANJAY KUMAR

SYNDICATE Bank, Gurgaon Branch, has come up in appeal against the order dated 13.5.1996 passed by the District Forum, Gurgaon, whereby the complaint of one Sanjay Kumar of Heli Mandi, Gurgaon, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in the matter of granting financial facility by way of subsidy etc., has been allowed by issuing a direction to the Bank to grant him the loan applied for by him under the Prime Minister''s Rozgar Yojna.

THE complainant had approached the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, with the grievance that even though he had applied for Rs. 60,000 / - loan to the Syndicate Bank, Gurgaon, through the Industries Department under the Prime Minister''s Rozgar Yojna for starting the business of electrical goods at his shop on the Railway Road, Gurgaon, and his application had also been duly forwarded with recommendation of the District Industries Officer, yet the requisite loan was not granted by the Bank. It was further alleged that his site had also been approved for running the said business but later on the Bank declined to advance the loan for the reason that the complainant was not interested in opening the electrical goods'' shop nor was there any scope for running such a shop, but he was only interested in utilising the loan by diverting the same to the Karyana shop which was being run by his brother in the adjacent premises. THE learned District Forum, after considering the stand taken by the Syndicate Bank, as mentioned above, allowed the complaint by taking the view that no doubt his brother was running a Karyana shop in the adjoining premises but the complainant being a Graduate and belonging to a business community could also run the electrical goods shop independently. In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Syndicate Bank has vehemently contended, that non- granting of financial facilities by the Bank could not be treated as deficiency in service on their part. The mere fact that Government had sanctioned margin money by way of subsidy etc. was no ground for the Bank to advance the loan automatically as the credit policy of the Government and the Reserve Bank of India were only the guidelines to the Banks for the sanctioning of loans. The learned Counsel further contended that it was proved on the record that the complainant was not an unemployed person but was fully engaged in running the joint business of Karyana with his brother and as such he was not eligible for loan under the Prime Minister''s Rozgar Yojna. Therefore, it was in view of this factual position that the Bank bona fide came to the conclusion that the grant of loan was not economically viable and in fact it was being taken for diverting the funds to the Karyana shop.

After hearing the learned Counsel and having gone through the record, we find considerable merit in the appeal of the Bank as it has by now been laid down by Hon''ble the National Commission in a number of cases, that non-grant of financial accommodation, loan or subsidy etc. does not amount to deficiency in service on the part of a Bank. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Syndicate Bank is allowed, the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. ___________________