TRILOKI NATH JAISWAL vs State Bank of India

SRI Triloki Nath Jaiswal, the complainant, having failed to get an order in his favour from the District Forum, Deoria, has referred this appeal against the dismissal of his complaint by the order of the District Consumer Forum, Deoria dated 28.2.1997.

MR. B.K. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the appellant as also Sri Triloki Nath Jaiswal, complainant himself have been heard at length. On behalf of State Bank of India, MR. Puneet Chandra has also been heard at length. The entire record has been scrutinised. The complainant has also filed written arguments and has placed reliance on some decisions. MR. Puneet Chandra has relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Viswalakshmi Sasidharan v. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, III (1997) CPJ 8 (SC), and also the finding recorded by the District Forum and has contended that on the facts and circumstances there was no question of paying any further sum towards the loan amount sanctioned for the complainant and there was no deficiency in service at all. The admitted facts are that the complainant. Triloki Nath Jaiswal, applied for a loan of Rs. 25,000/- for establishing an oil industry. Since the complainant was an educated unemployed youth, the District Industries Officer recommended loan of Rs. 25,000/- which was sanctioned by the State Bank of India. Out of this sanctioned amount, a sum of the Rs. 8,200/- at the first instance and another sum of Rs. 1,385/- were released. The admitted position is that a total sum of Rs. 9,500/- stood released in favour of the complainant.

The only controversy raised through the complaint was whether the complainant was entitled to the further sum of the sanctioned amount. On this issue, the complainant says that by not releasing the remaining amount, State Bank of the India and the Industries Office have faltered in the contractual settlements inasmuch as the said action amounted to deficiency in service.

THE bank on the other hand has said that just as the instalments were released, the complainant made application that he may be permitted to change the object of taking the loan, i.e., he was no more interested in establishing the oil industry but wanted the loan amount to be utilized for establishing a coal depot and fire-wood shop which request was rejected by the Bank. On this point the District Industries Officer pleaded before the Forum that the complainant had made a request for changing the industry as noted above which application was duly forwarded by it to the State Bank of India Branch and Regional Offices. He also admits that the State Bank of India had not sanctioned or authorised any change in the accepted terms of the contract because it did not agree to change the oil industry into coal-depot and fire-wood shop. It is again admitted position that the appellant did not repay any instalments towards the loan obtained by him, upon which the Bank was duty-bound to issue and it did issue a recovery certificate for recovering the loan amount. In the recovery proceedings the complainant was kept under imprisonment and the loan amount was recovered by Tehsildar and remitted to the Bank. It was further point out that the complainant''s allegation that subsidy of about Rs. 6,250/- was separately receivable by the complainant which was not paid to him, is desired by the consistent case of the State Bank which had been that the subsidy was duly released in favour of the complainant and the allegations to that effect were wrong and denied.

THE finding recorded by the District Forum is that : xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Both Mr. B.K. Upadhyay and the complainant himself attempted to assail the aforesaid finding of the District Forum, but could not find out any error theren much less any material or evidence upon which the said finding could be interfered with. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions which are taken up and simultaneously their relevance is also pointed out : (1) Kamal Nagpal v. State Bank of India, II (1995) CPJ 342 (SCDRC-J & K) : Out of the sanctioned amount of Rs. 85,000/- a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was released. A sum of Rs. 35,000/- was not paid. It has been held to be deficiency in service by the State Bank. In the instant complaint, the complainant on receiving the instalments, intended to change the industry, i.e, a contract was unilaterally altered and no instalment was paid. Such are not the facts in the cited decision, therefore, it is distinguishable. (2) Nand Rao Soorve v. State Bank of India, II (1995) CPJ 344 (SCDRC-A.P.). It has been held that refusal to grant loan cannot be adjudicated upon by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The case is of no help to the appellant. (3) Kottayam Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. v. Sarada Chandra, 1993 (1) CPR 603 (SCDRC-Ker). It has been held that delayed payment of loan amount, for no fault of the complainant, amounted to deficiency in service. In the instant case no such allegation exists. Moreover, the balance amount of loan stood already paid to the complainant in the cited decision and hence a sum of Rs. 1,000/- only was directed to be paid as compensation which alone was subject-matter of appeal. The case is distinguishable. (4) Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=1994 (1) ALR 40-54 (SC). The celebrated decision by the Hon''ble Supreme Court does not deal with the issue arising in the instant appeal. (5) Smt. Sharda Devi v. State of U.P., AIR (2002) 11-13 (FB) . This is ruling on the power of a Bank to recover loan amount under U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act. It was held to be confined to money advanced under State sponsored schemes. The said ruling has no application to the present facts. (6) Bhola Nath v. State Bank of India, 2002 (1) AWC 644 (All). The said ruling explains what the aforesaid Full Bench has laid down, and it has no application. (7) Asha Textiles (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1999) Pra Ni Pra 43 (Civil) : This is a decision on collection charges. (8) Triveni Karmachari Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. NCDRC, (1996) 1 CRC 260. The instant ruling is on the power of the consumer Courts in executing the decrees passed by them.

THE last ruling to be referred to is the one Viswalakshmi Sasidharan''s case (supra). In the said case it has been held in the last para of the decision that : "...... It is admitted that due to slump in the market, they could not sell the goods, realise the price of the finished product and pay back the loan to the Bank. That admission stands in their way to plead at the later stage that they suffered loss on account of the deficiency in service. Under those circumstances, we do not find any ground warranting interference."

NO other decision has been cited. As stated above, the bank has relied upon the factual position existing in the instant case, upon which there was no alternative but to proceed with the recovery of the instalments paid because the complainant unilaterally altered the term of the contract and did not make any payment of the instalments due. There is absolutely no error in the judgment delivered by the District Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/respondents and the findings of the District Forum require no interference whatsoever. 12. Appeal is dismissed.

Cost shall be borne by the parties.

BEFORE parting, it may be pointed out that Mr. B.K. Upadhyay expressed an apprehension that the dismissal of this appeal may end in refusal of reliefs which may otherwise be claimed before proper Courts. Consumer Courts go into issues involving deficiency in service or negligence therein. This decision goes against the complainant only on those issues. If the complainant has any other remedy and is advised to opt for it hereafter, this dismissal shall not be interpreted as a bar. Appeal dismissed.