VISWALAKSHMI SASIDHARAN vs BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK

THE Appellants Mrs. Viswalakshmi Sasidharan & Ors. have appealed against the order dated 27.3.1993 in Complaint No. 65/90 of the State Commission, Karnataka. The case of the Complainants before the State Commission was that the Opposite Party namely the Syndicate Bank, Camp. Branch, Belgaum did not disburse the full amount of the two loans sanctioned for them in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- under OSL-5/82 and Rs. 3,00,000/-under OSL-7/1982 which act, according to them, constituted a deficiency in service resulting in losses to them. These loans were required for procuring moulds, tools and raw material as well as for the payment of labour charges. While the Appellants availed themselves of the full amount of the loan under OS-5 /82 and a sum of Rs. 1,47,000/- under OSL-7/82, the Syndicate Bank did not disburse the balance amount to the full extent of the sanctioned limit under OSL-7/ 82. As a consequence, the Appellants have contended, they could not pay the labour charges to B.E.M.L., and therefore, could not manufacture the products ordered by B.E.M.L. resulting in heavy losses in the process. On the basis of these averments the Appellants herein sought damages to the extent of Rs. 9,50,000/- before the State Commission.

THE Opposite Party namely the Syndicate Bank in their pleadings before the State Commission contended that as the Appellants did not adhere .to the terms and conditions of the loan and violated them, the further disbursements were stopped after the two limits sanctioned to them were merged in one limit in OSL-2/86 by extinguishing OSL-5/82 and OSL-7/82. The Bank also stated before the State Commission that they have filed a suit in OS-148 /1990 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum for the recovery of the amount already due from the Appellant and the said suit is pending. The State Commission after examining the record and the evidence of the witnesses gave its finding on the following issues : (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 complainant is entitled to ?

THE State Commission came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the submission of the Complainants that the services rendered by the Bank were in any way deficient in nature due to non-release of further funds in OSL-7/82 by taking support of the ruling of this Commission in Excess Farms (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Anr. reported in 1(1992) CPJ 111 where this Commission had held : "The refusal of the Bank to 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."

ON the point of subject matter of the complaint pending before Civil Judge, the State Commission followed this Commission''s rulings in M/s. Dees Pistons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State Bank of India and Anr. reported in 1(1991) CPR page 148 wherein it was held : "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."

Following the rulings cited earlier and after going into the records of the case the State Commission dismissed the complaint.

WE have heard the Counsels for the Appellants as well as the Respondents and have carefully perused the records of the case. The contention of the Appellants that they sustained heavy losses due to non-disbursement of the balance amount of loan from the combined facility of credit sanctioned in OSL-7/82,isnotborne out by the facts of the case. In fact, in a letter dated 26.11.1982 sent by the Appellants to the Bank, the Appellants themselves have admitted that due to the dull industrial situation existing, they could not progress as planned and further considering the present recession and their difficulty they requested the Bank to grant an extension of three months to close the account. In our view, therefore, the State Commission has rightly dismissed this complaint. We see no merit in this appeal and hence dismiss it with no order as to costs.