State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Anindya Roy vs The Chief Manager, State Bank Of India, ... on 19 September, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : CC/39/2011 DATE OF FILING : 11.05.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 19.09.2013 COMPLAINANT Mr. Anindya Roy S/o Late Rabindra Roy Residing at 93D, Gangulay Bagan (East) Road P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 084 Prop. Of Power Link Equipment. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Chief Manager State Bank of India La Martiniere Branch 11, Loudon Street P.S. Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata-700 017. 2. The Assistant General Manager Stress Assets Resolution Centre State Bank of India 9B, Esplanade Road (East) P.S. Park Street Kolkata-700 069. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Mr. Pradip Sadhukhan, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Soumya Roy, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present petition of complaint has been preferred by Mr. Anindya Roy against (1) State Bank of India, La Martiniere Branch, Kolkata and (2) The Assistant General Manager, Stress Assets Resolution Centre, Kolkata, thereby paying for passing necessary orders directing the Ops to pay Rs. 92.94 lacs as compensation for the loss and damages suffered by the complainant as per the petition of complaint.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is running a business of Small Scale Unit in the name and style as M/s. Power Link Equipment, for manufacturing Pre-stressed Cement Concrete Pole, as a sole proprietor for the purpose of earning livelihood for self and his family members. According to the complainant, a Term Loan to the tune of Rs. 7.90 lacs was sanctioned by West Bengal Financial Corporation in favour of the complainant for the purpose of purchasing plant and machinery, out of which the complainant availed of Rs. 7.30 lacs and the same was utilized by the manufacturing unit.
Subsequently, on the prayer of the complainant, State Bank of India, Rash Bihari Avenue Branch, sanctioned working capital to the tune of Rs. 7.47 lacs. Anticipating a favourable transaction the complainant purchased requisite plan and machinery, but in spite of repeated requests and demands SBI did not release the loan amount in favour of the complainant. However, subsequently, SBI, Rash Bihari Avenue Branch sanctioned a fresh limit of Rs. 16.00 lacs, with the help of which the complainant started his business on and from 13.9.1996. It is the further case of the complainant that in spite of repeated requests and demands from 1992 the Bank ultimately started financing/disbursing the working capital in favour of the complainant from 1996. According to the complainant, such inordinate delay at the instance of the SBI has resulted in intermittent stoppage of the unit/business of the complainant, which, according to the complainant, tantamounts to deficiency in service. Initially, the Bank never declared the complainants unit to be defaulter in the matter of repayment of the loan and in the year 2000 West Bengal Financial Corporations term loan was taken over by the SBI, Rash Bihari Avenue Branch, with a settlement of Rs. 10.00 lacs, of which the transactions between the Bank and the complainant were Rs. 7.30 lacs and Rs. 2.70 lacs respectively. It is the further case of the complainant that subsequently the complainants working capital limit was enhanced from Rs. 16.00 lacs to Rs. 22.00 lacs with the ad hoc limit of Rs. 5.00 lacs also sanctioned by SBI, Rash Bihari Avenue Branch. Subsequently, the account of the complainants unit was transferred to SBI, La Martiniere Branch (OP No. 1), which extended another ad hoc limit to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lacs in the year 2001 and the adjustments of the amount continued in the usual manner and in the process, the complainant repaid Rs. 7.70 lacs to the Bank in January, 2002. In the meantime, there was an accumulation of different bills of the Government/semi-Government bodies and the complainant in due course of time submitted those bills for payment before the Bank in question, but without any avail.
For the purpose of settling the unutilized/unpaid bills there was no alternative left before the complainant but to submit rehabilitation package proposal on 7.1.2003 in terms of the Reserve Bank of Indias guidelines. According to the complainant, the rehabilitation package proposal was never considered by the Bank and ultimately, the matter was sent to the OP No. 2, but no decision was arrived at there also. At this stage, the complainant sought for interference of RBIs State Level Institutional Interaction Committee (SLIIC) and without considering that aspect of the matter the OP No. 2 instituted a proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the complainant. But the institution of the DRT case was suppressed before SLIIC.
Ultimately, the SLIIC requested for amicable settlement of the dispute. But in the meantime the OP No. 2 has refused to finalise and settle the matter with the complainant and that too after expiry of long seven years, during which period the production of the complainants unit came to a standstill, which also, according to the complainant, tantamounts to gross deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops. Thereafter, the complainant attempted for amicable settlement for Rs. 11.00 lacs, but the OP No.2 has refused to accept the settlement proposal.
According to the complainant, the acts on the part of the Ops are gross violation of RBI guidelines and rules and that due to indifferent attitude on the part of the Ops the complainant has suffered great loss, both mentally and financially, which also tantamounts to gross deficiency and negligence on the part of the Ops and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal.
The Ops are contesting the case by filing a written version thereby denying and disputing all the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending, inter alia, that the complainant is not a Consumer and the dispute raised at the instance of the complainant do not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant being a habitual defaulter question of accommodating the complainant as per the complainants version of the case does not arise at all. Under compelling circumstances the Bank had to take recourse to law and initiated a DRT proceeding before the appropriate forum. According to the Ops, the complainant has willfully and intentionally applied the financial facilities extended to the complainant by the Ops to some adventurous matters, which has resulted in non-utilisation of the fund, for which the complainant himself is responsible and liable. According to the Ops, within the permitted periphery the financial help was extended to the complainant, but due to lack of appropriate attitude the complainant could not utilize the find, for which the Ops are not responsible and as such, there is no deficiency and/or negligence at the instance of the Ops, as claimed by the complainant. It is the further case of the Ops that RBI has not found any lapse on the part of the Ops, as claimed by the complainant. The Bank within its permissible limit has instituted a proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act against the complainant and question of deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops on this score does not arise at all.
The petition of complaint having been filed on all false and fictitious grounds the same is liable to be dismissed.
The following issues are framed for proper adjudication of the instant case.
1. Is the petition of complaint maintainable?
2. Are the Ops deficient in service, as claimed by the complainant?
3. Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.
It has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that in this case the complainant has placed all the cards before this Commission in support of his case and from the materials on record it has become quite evident that due to non-financing in the complainants Small Scale Unit at the instance of the OP/Bank the complainant has suffered huge amount of financial loss together with mental agony and harassment, which tantamounted to gross deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OP/Bank. While elaborating on this point the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has submitted before us that when it is an admitted position to the effect that when an industry becomes sick, as per RBI guidelines rehabilitation scheme is to be submitted for rejuvenating the business unit by extending financial help.
In terms of all these aspects of the case the complainant in due course of time submitted a rehabilitation proposal before the Bank. But, for reasons best known to the Bank, the Bank sat tight over the said proposal and ultimately turned down the proposal so placed by the complainant on the false and frivolous allegation that the complainant was a defaulter. According to the Ld. Advocate, the Bank did not stop here, but due to sheer vindictive attitude has instituted a proceeding under SARFAESI Act against the complainant without any rhyme and reason at all.
According to the Ld. Advocate, this act on the part of the Bank also tantamounted to deficiency in service.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant has further submitted that finding no other alternative the complainant approached the Government of West Bengal for appropriate redressal and on being approached the Government framed a State Level Institutional Interaction Committee for proper evaluation of the complainants prayer and in spite of requests at the instance of the said committee for amicable settlement the Bank never considered the prayer of the complainant for settlement of the dispute and instead, the Bank promptly instituted a case before the DRT against the complainant, which clearly shows the vindictive attitude of the OP/Bank and this act on the part of the Bank also tantamounted to gross deficiency in service. While submitting on the point of the complainants innumerable attempts to have regular funding at the instance of the Bank for effectually and substantially running the business, the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has urged before us that all of the complainants prayers before the Bank for extending a helping hand to the complainant were blatantly refused/turned down by the Bank without assigning any reason whatsoever and that too against the guidelines of RBI, which also, according to the Ld. Advocate for the complainant, tantamounted to deficiency in service at the instance of the OP/Bank.
While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has submitted that from the materials on record it has become palpably clear that the Bank has willfully withheld the timely financial help to the complainant, which has resulted in huge loss sustained by the complainant and has also imposed financial burden upon the complainant for no fault on the part of the complainant and the OP/Bank is solely responsible for this helpless position of the complainant. The complainant having been successful in substantiating his case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence the prayer of the complainant for redressal in terms of the prayer of the petition of complaint should be allowed.
We have duly considered the submission so put forward on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced and find that in this case the complainant has come forward with a case to the effect that after observing all the formalities the complainant obtained loan facility for funding his working capital and running the small scale unit of business. But though the Bank has extended some financial help, the same being very irregular and not timely it was of no help to the complainant.
Rather, due to untimely funding of the OP/Bank for a prolong period, the functioning of the small scale unit of the complainant had to be stopped resulting in serious detriment of interest of the complainant, for which it is the OP/Bank is responsible and that this non-cooperation and willful withholding of financial help clearly tantamounted to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OP/Bank and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal. The OP/Bank, on the other hand, has come forward with a case to the effect that the Bank within its permissible limit did extend the financial help to the complainant for its utilization in the SSI unit business, but the complainant being not successful in utilizing the financial help properly has rendered the business to a standstill for a prolong period, for which it is the complainant to be blamed and not the OP/Bank. The Bank has never disobeyed the RBI guidelines in this aspect and as the complainant was an intentional defaulter in respect of repayment of the loan in question, there was no alternative left before the Bank but to institute the appropriate action against the complainant and even the RBI has found no illegality and/or irregularity in the acts of the OP/Bank in respect of the transaction entered into by and between the complainant and the OP/Bank and considering this aspect there should not be any iota of doubt that the Bank has not committed any irregularity or deficiency in service, as claimed by the complainant, and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
We have carefully gone through the materials on record and have also considered the submissions so advanced on behalf of both sides and find much substance in the submission so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the OP/Bank, according to whom, it is incumbent upon the complainant to prove the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence at the instance of the OP/Bank and the complainant having utterly failed to do so there was no scope to hold any view in favour of the complainant. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Ops, when it is an admitted position that a proceeding under SARFAESI Act is pending against the complainant, question of invoking the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, as done by the complainant, is not at all permissible under the law and that on this score alone the present complaint case has become not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed in the absence of any deficiency at the instance of the OP/Bank. Having considered the present complaint case in the light of above discussion we find no merit in the present complaint case, which, in our opinion, should be dismissed.
All the points are accordingly disposed of against the complainant. In the result, the complaint case fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the petition of complaint stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT