AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 the two banks, and he has claimed compensation on the ground of financial loss and sought other reliefs mentioned in the complaint petition.
THE case of the complainant may be briefly stated. THE complainant happens to be the father of Sri Pramod Kumar Jha who is the proprietor of a Small Scale Factory known as M/s. Kumar Textiles in the Industrial Estate, Bhagalpur under Unemployed Engineers Employment Scheme since 1979. Sri Pramod Kumar Jha as the proprietor of that factory applied for working capital loan in 1972 from the Central Bank of India, Bhagalpur where he had his account. THE Manager of the Bank took the running guarantee of one lac rupees. But the loan was not disbursed to him and he was informed that loan of Rs. 15,000/- only was sanctioned to him which he had already got in his account in the year 1972. In the year 1973 the State Bank of India established its branch at Barari and Sri Pramod Kumar Jha opened his account in this bank also and filed a loan petition for Rs.1,00,000/- But the bank gave overdraft facility of Rs. 5000.00 to him and the working capital was never given to him by the State Bank of India, Barari Branch. THE complainant has filed this case as a guarantor of his son Sri Pramod Kumaj Jha. His case is that according to sanctioned Scheme the Nationalised Banks have to provide Rs. 3,50,000.00 a loan on concessional rate of interest @ 8% which two opposite parties banks did not advance to his son and as a result, the factory of his son was closed causing huge loss to him. The complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2-the two banks causing financial loss to him and claiming compensation in respect thereof and other reliefs mentioned above.
On being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed written version challenging the maintainability of the case before this Commission. It has been stated on behalf of the State Bank of India that M/s. Kumar Textiles had been provided overdraft facility but the said unit did not pay back the dues for which the demand notice was issued for recovery of Rs. 20,000.00 on 28.10.78. But the payment was evaded by the firm and ultimately the Bank had to file Money Suit No. 90 of 1984 for the recovery of Rs. 58,073.00 from M/s. Kumar Textiles in which M/s. Kumar Textiles appeared and filed written statement, and also contested the case and the suit was decreed against the firm on 11.5.89. On the basis of that decree the Money Execution No. 82 of 90 for executing the decree has been filed. Taking into consideration the conduct of the proprietor of the firm the Bank did not grant any loan to him.
THE Central Bank of India in its written version has stated interalia that the bank allowed cash credit open limit facilities of Rs. 1,50,000.00 and Cash Credit Key Loan of Rs. 10,000.00 of Sri Pramod Kumar Jha in 1972. But the loan advanced by the Bank was not paid back by the firm and therefore the bank had to file Mortgage Suit No. 189/89 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Bhagalpur for the realisation of Rs. 2,02,875.00 which pending for disposal. THE bank has charged correct rate of interest on the advances made to the firm and it has maintained correct account thereof. On these grounds the O.P. have asserted that the case is fit to be dismissed.
IT may be mentioned that it is evident from the facts stated above that the complainant it this case is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. He had not hired the services of the opposite parties Banks. He was only a loan guarantor. Moreover, it is for the banks to decide whether to assist any firm with the term and working capital loans. If in their judgments they find that a party is not credit worthy, it can not be maintained that the refusal to finance the unit constitutes deficiency in the banking service to which the firm is entitled to from banks. We are supported in our view by the decision of the National Commission in the case of Ashoka Prabhakar v. State Bank of India and Others, I (1993) CPJ 11 (NC). If there is any evidence of proved abuse of exercise of their authority for giving credit by Bank Officials redress has to be sought from the officers of the Bank in their higher echleons. It is not open for the Commission to substitute its judgment for the decisions to be taken by the Banks for giving Bank Credit. We are supported in out views by the observations of the National Commission in the case of Ram Kripal Bhargava v. Union Bank of India and Others, I (1991) CPJ 23 (NC) (First Appeal No. 23 of 1989, decided on 16.3.90).
IN the result we are constrained to hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint petition is accordingly dismissed. There is no order, however, as to costs. Complaint dismissed.