AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this complaint, the complainant has sought compensation for the loss and the injury sustained by him due to the refusal of availment of the facilities by the respondent-Bank to the extent of sanctioned limits to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had approached the opposite party Bank for necessary financial assistance for manufacture of Hydraulic Gear Pumps, Transmission cases etc. to supply them to Messrs Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., K.G.F. The complainant required the said financial assistance for the purchase of new moulds, tools, inspection equipments, test rigs etc. and also for the purchase of necessary raw-materials and labour charges.
THE opposite party-Bank sanctioned two loans; a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- under OSL-5/82 and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- under OSL-7/1982. THE loan under OSL-5/82 was required for procuring necessary moulds, tools etc. and the loan under OSL-7/82 was required for the purchase of raw materials and for the payment of labour charges. It is the further case of the complainant that he availed the full amount in OSL-5/82 and a sum of Rs. 1,47,000/-under OSL-7/82. The complainant nextly averred that the opposite party-Bank did not grant further availment of the facility by the complainant to the full extent of sanctioned limit in OSL-7/82.
The complainant nextly averred in consequence of with-holding the release of the balance sanctioned loan in OSL-7/82, the complainant could not pay the labour charges to BEML and could not manufacture the products ordered by BEML and thereby lost the annual orders from BEML and also sustained heavy loss in the process.
THE project of the complainant failed due to this gross negligence on the part of the opposite party-Bank and so the services rendered by the opposite party-Bank were deficient in nature. The complainant on the basis of these averments, sought damages to the extent of Rs. 9,50,000.00 as under : "7) the particulars of damages are as under : Rs. 4,00,000.00 Invested in patteras, tools, equipments, production of prototype etc. Rs. 3,00,000.00 Loss due to loss of order from BEML and loss of time in the new project. Rs. 2,50,000.00 Loss of reputation Rs. 9,50,000.00 Total damages."
THE opposite party-Bank filed its statement of objections and averred that the complainant did not adhere to the terms and conditions as regards submission of stock statements, declaring of unpaid stocks and also failure to route the funds through the opposite party-Bank. THE complainant acted in violation of terms and conditions of the orders of sanction of loan. The opposite party-Bank further averred that upon the complainants proposal for renewal of the limits, all the limits have been combined and renewed in OSL-2/86 in consequence of which OSL-5/82 and OSL-7/82 have been extinguished and so there is no question of any deficiency in service in regard to OSL-7/82. The opposite party-Bank nextly averred that it has already filed a suit in OS-148/1990 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum for the recovery of the amount due by the complainant. The said suit is pending and so the matter is sub-judice before a competant Civil Court and so the complaint is untenable.
THE opposite party-Bank on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed.
DURING enquiry, the complainant examined C.W-1, the General Power of attorney holder and got Ex. C-1 to C-38, marked in evidence. These are all the copies of letters exchanged between the complainant and the opposite party. The opposite party-Bank did not examine any witness but the documents filed by it with the consent of the learned Counsel for the complainant were marked in evidence as Ex. R-1 to R-51. Ex. R-1 is the loan sanction letter, Ex. R-9 is the copy of the plaint in OS-148/90, Ex. R-10 is the copy of the written statement filed by the complainant in the said suit and Ex. R-11 is the copy of the issues raised in the said suit. The other documents are the copies of letters exchanged between the parties.
We have perused the pleadings of the parties and also heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
AS per the pleadings and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration are as under : (1) Whether the services rendered by the opposite party-Bank were in any way deficient in nature ? (2) Whether the subject-matter in the complaint being sub-judice before a competent Civil Court; the complaint is tenable ? (3) To what relief the complaint is entitled to ? It is not disputed that the opposite party-Bank sanctioned loans in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- under OSL-5/82 and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- under OSL-7/82 in favour of the complainant-industry. It is also not disputed that the complainant availed the full amount in OSL-5/82 and a sum of Rs. 1,47,000/- in OSL-7/82.
IT is also not disputed that subsequently both the loan amounts were combined and were converted into a loan in OSL-2/86 and for the recovery of the amount due under the said loan account. In OSL-2/86, the opposite party-Bank has filed a suit against the complainant in OS-148/90 which is pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum. It is the case of the complainant that he had obtained loan in OSL-7/82 for the purchase of raw-materials and for providing labor charges and as the opposite party-Bank failed to release the bal- ance amount in OSL-7/82, the complainant did suffer a huge loss as he was unable to meet the labour charges. The opposite party-Bank has averred that the balance amount in OSL-7/82 could not be released in favour of the complainant as he failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the order of sanction of the said loan.
19. EX. R-18 is the copy of the letter dated 9.11.82 written by the opposite party-Bank to the complainant which reads as under : - "Sub; Loan accounts. On verification of our records we observe that you have not submitted the following requirements despite our reminders : 1. Letter from K.S.F.C. confirming that your loan accounts with them are regular, please submit the same immediately ; 2. As per the repayment terms of project loan of Rs. 3 lacs, you have to clear the first project loan within 4 months. As such we request you to arrange to close OSL-7/82 with present balance of Rs. 1,48,692.10 immediately on receipt of this letter."
THIS shows that due to failure to adhere to certain conditions by the complainant, the opposite party-Bank wrote the letter to the complainant drawing his attention to the irregularities committed by him. Ex. C-l is the copy of letter dated 26.11.1982, written by the complainant to the opposite party- Bank, which reads as under : "Ref : Your OSL-7/82 for Rs. 3 lacs. The above referred project loan was sanctioned for the manufacture of Gears pumps and transmission cases. The above items are import substitution items. Due to the dull industrial situation existing we could not progress as planned. The gear pumps and transmission cases are in various stages of development. Considering the present recession and our difficulty in developing these import substitution items we request you to grant us an extension of 3 months to close the account. An early decision on this matter will be highly appreciated. Thanking you."
The contents of the said letter would go to show that due to dull industrial situation and recession, the complainant could not proceed with the project and sought extension of time to close the account.
THIS would go to show that the loss, if any, suffered by the complainant was due to industrial recession and not due to non-release of balance funds in OSL-7/82 by the opposite party-Bank. The material on record shows that both the loans OSL-5/82 and OSL-7/82 were combined and converted into a fresh account in OSL-2/86. The complainant has in this regard stated in his evidence, thus : "As per the directions of the Bank I had also agreed for opening a new account consolidating the earlier two loan accounts."
IN view of this admission of the complainant, it is very difficult to hold that the complainant did suffer any loss due to non-release of balance amount by the opposite party-Bank under OSL-7/ 82. By the time this complaint came to be filed, there was no account under OSL-7/82 and, therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the complainant that the services rendered by the opposite party-Bank were in any way deficient in nature due to non-release of further funds in OSL-7/82. The National Commission in Essex Farms (Pvt.) Ltd. and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Another reported in I (1992) CPJ 111 (NC), while considering such an aspect of the matter, has held thus : "The refusal of the Bank of continue to grant credit to the extent of the limits already sanctioned cannot and does not constitute a breach of the Bank''s obligation towards its debtors."
Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the services rendered by the opposite party-Bank where in no way deficient in nature, so point No. 1 is answered against the complainant.
REGARDING Point No. 2 : It is not disputed that the opposite party-Bank has already filed a suit in OS-148/90 against the complainant for the recovery of the amount due and the said suit is still pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum. It is clear from this that the matter in the complaint is sub-judice before a-competent Civil Court.
THE National Commission in M/s. Dees Pistons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State Bank of India and another, reported in 1991 (1) CPR 148, observed thus : "This petition has to fail on the short ground that a suit in respect of the same matter is pending between these parties in the District Court, Jaipur and it is open to the petitioner to raise in the said suit all the contentions that he has raised before this Commission. We have already held in a number of cases that when a matter is sub-judice before a competent Civil Court, this Commission will not entertain a petition in respect of the identical subject-matter. On this limited ground, this petition is dismissed."
In view of this principle laid down by the National Commission, we are constrained to hold that when the matter is sub-judice before a competent Civil Court, the present complaint in respect of the identical subject-matter is untenable. Hence point No. 2 is also answered against the complainant. In view of the facts and the circumstances of the case we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Complaint dismissed.