State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Sheetal Kumar on 27 May, 2010
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA-9. FIRST APPEAL No.93/2009. DECIDED ON 27.05.2010. In the matter of: 1. State Bank of India, A body Corporate Constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman, State Bank of India a body Corporate Constituted point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Chandigarh. It has its branch Office at Nadaun through Shri Ramesh Chand Kainth, Branch Manager, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Shri R.K. Dhiman, Regional Officer, State Bank of India, Branch, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. 3. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chandigarh, Sector-17-B. Appellants. Versus Shri Sheetal Kumar son of Shri Kishore Chand, Resident of Village and Post Office Kohla, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamrpur, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent/Complainant. .... Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Honble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member. ....
Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellants: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Kapil Dev Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondent: In person.
....
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).
Appellants are aggrieved from the order passed by District Forum, Hamirpur in Consumer Complaint No.124/2006, on 12.03.2009. By means of impugned order, they have been directed to pay Rs.50,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of said order, failing which this amount was to carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of complaint, i.e. 19.09.2006 till realization. In addition to this, appellants have been burdened with cost of complaint in the sum of Rs.2,000/-.
Hence this appeal.
2. As per respondent, he approached the State Bank of India, at its Nadaun branch for providing financial assistance with a view to establish industrial unit of oil expelling. According to him he submitted project report. This was wrongly not considered. This resulted in filing of the complaint, wherein he claimed compensation for harassment, being put to disrepute, as well as on account of loss of earnings etc. This complaint was contested by the appellants. While contesting the claim of the respondent, stand of the appellants was that the project was submitted by him, was found to be not viable by them. We may mention here that as per annexures R-1 and R-3 to R-5, respondent was only informed project was not viable, on what grounds it was not viable the entire correspondence on the subject is silent.
3. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent did not have land either in his own name or on lease on which the proposed project was to be established. He was called upon vide annexure R-1 to provide proof of such land to it, needful was not done. Receipt of letter annexure R-1 was seriously disputed by Mr. Sheetal Kumar, respondent. Per him this letter was never received by him. Regarding annexures R-3 to R-6, his stand was that these letters are silent as to the basis for holding the project to be not viable. Nothing could be spelt out from any of these annexures to this effect. Though the respondent reiterated that the project report submitted by him was of a viable project at that point of time.
4. In this behalf his submission was, compensation awarded by the District Forum below is on lower side. Because when the project report was submitted there was industrial package in force in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Numerous benefits, like sales tax and income tax holiday and other subsidies were available to him, which have ceased with effect from 31.03.2010. In these circumstances he further pointed out that if the project was not viable, he had to be informed of the grounds, so he could satisfy the appellants either after removal of such grounds or on the basis of project report itself.
5. Appellants-bank is wholly a Government of India owned and controlled bank, over which the latter has control, therefore it falls within the definition of other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India. All its actions have to be tested on the touch stone of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. By simply writing one word that the project was not viable is not enough to show that the project was not actually viable, as is the stand of the appellants in reply to the complaint.
6. Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur made an attempt by referring the stand as set out in the reply to the complaint for allowing this appeal. We do not agree with him for the simple reason, that as a public authority, appellant-bank was expected to have appraised the respondent as to why the project was not viable. Reasons indicate application of mind by the authority concerned and nothing could be spelt out from annexures R-3 to R-6 on behalf of the appellants. That being the position, we are in agreement with the submission of Mr. Sheetal Kumar respondent, that no benefit can be derived by the appellants from annexures R-3 to R-6. From perusal of annexurs R-3 to R-6, it is evident that this is no reason given in these for holding the project to be not viable.
7. At this stage we may also notice that complaint was earlier dismissed by District Forum below on 30.08.2007. This was challenged in Appeal No.446/2007. Appeal was disposed of in the following terms:-
5. In the peculiar circumstances of this case it would be just and proper in the interest of justice to set aside the order of the District Forum below dated 30.08.2007, in complaint No.124/2006, and remand the case to the said District Forum, Hamirpur with the direction to re-examine the case afresh without being influenced by anything said either in this order, or in its previous order. Appellant is also directed to approach the branch of the respondents at its Nadaun, who will re-examine the case properly in accordance with law. In case the claim is rejected it will give a fresh cause of action to the appellant for redressal of his grievance. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Distt. Forum on 29.8.2008. No fresh notice will be given to either of the parties, since we have fixed the date. Office will ensure that file is sent back well before the date fixed.
8. Again when the matter came up before District Forum below, complaint was disposed of in the following terms:-
9. The opposite parties are ordered and directed to pay compensation on account of deficiency in service on their part to the complainant, which we assess at Rs.50,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 19.09.2006 till realization. The complainant shall also be entitled to cost of complaint in the sum of Rs.2,000/-. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Certified copy of this order, be supplied to the parties, free of cost. The after its due completion, be consigned to Record Room.
9. At this stage, Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur drew our attention and referred to M.A. No.619/2009, filed for permitting appellants to lead additional evidence. According to him after passing of earlier order, appellant-bank had re-examined the case and vide letter dated 22.06.2009 has given reasons as to why the loan application for Rs.37.50 lacs submitted in the name of Mr. Sheetal Kumar could not be granted.
10. When the matter came up again and an attempt was made to get the matter sorted out, direction on 26.11.2009 was given in the following terms:-
First Appeal No.93/2009.
26.11.2009.
Hamirpur.
Present: Mr. Ram Kishore Sharma, Advocate, For the appellant, with Mr. R.C.Kainth, Branch Manager of appellant-bank at its Nadaun branch.
Mr. Sheetal Kumar, respondent in person.
----
Respondent has filed reply to application for additional evidence which is taken on record. Respondent made a grievance that order passed by us on 24.7.2008 in Appeal No.446/2007 to re-examine his case for the grant of loan has been followed more in its branch than compliance by the appellants. Whereas stand of learned Counsel for the appellants was that the earlier project report had been returned to the respondent which position was not disputed by him. In these circumstances, we feel that in order to cut short the dispute, let the respondent file the project report and other documents which he had taken back so that order passed on 24.7.2008 could be complied with by the appellants and the case re-examined in terms thereof by the appellant-bank. Respondent Shri Sheetal Kumar submitted that he shall do the needful within 1 week from today. On needful being done as per requirements of the appellant-bank, the same will be examined in terms of the aforesaid order in Appeal No.446/2007. It is made clear that with a view to enable the appellant-bank to re-examine the case, respondent shall also provide other or further information/documents as may be called upon by the Branch Manager of the appellant No.1 at Nadaun, who shall then deal with the same in a dispassionate manner ignoring the pending litigation between the parties. We clarify that this direction does not mean that after filing of the documents/papers, appellant-bank is bound to sanction loan. It shall do the needful only after all the codal formalities had been completed by the respondent as per requirements of the bank.
For further proceedings be listed on 14.1.2010.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellants No.1 at its Nadaun branch, as well as to the respondent at his address as given in the Memo. of parties.
11. This appeal again came up before us, when the respondent prayed for re-call of the above order when following order was passed:-
Appeal No.93/2009.
14.1.2010.
Present: Mr. Balwant Singh, Advocate vice counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Sheetal Kumar, respondent in person.
When this case was taken up today, Mr. Sheetal Kumar submitted that instead of getting the matter settled for which attempt was being made by us, this case may be disposed one way or the other. He further submitted that the order dated 26.11.2009 may also be recalled.
In the face of this statement made by the respondent, the said order is recalled as a consequence of it any action taken by the appellant or the respondent will not be binding on any of the party. Respondent has filed his written arguments which are taken on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he will also file written arguments/ submissions by sending its advance copy to Mr. Sheetal Kumar through registered post.
Be listed on 16.3.2010 for further proceedings, and if possible for dictating the order also.
12. Today at the time of hearing, Mr. Sheetal Kumar submitted that so far as he is concerned, he is confining his claim as set out in the original complaint. Thus subsequent project report submitted by him for grant of Rs.37.50 lacs may be ignored while considering this appeal. Further according to him, his case may be considered on the basis of material which is on complaint file by ignoring the documents attached with this application for additional evidence by the appellant-bank and by him in reply to this application. In the light of this stand, this application i.e. M.A. No.619/2009 is hereby rejected.
13. Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, pointed out that there was no deficiency in service on the part of his clients as the fault was on the part of respondent himself.
As he did not meet the requirements subject to which his case was to be considered. According to him, bank deals with public money, therefore it has to ensure safety of the interest of depositors. He further contended that the loan in question was applied under Credit Guarantee Scheme, which is only sanctioned subject to norms laid down by the bank, as well as, per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.
Respondent cannot force the appellants to sanction the loan without his complying with the codal formalities.
This was seriously disputed by the respondent. He submitted that at no point of time he declined to do the needful. But no grounds were told to him by the bank. According to him, he has been dragged into litigation since September, 2006 till date. In this exercise he has incurred substantial expense, therefore he needs to be compensated adequately and prayed for upholding the order of District Forum below.
14. However for the view we have taken while dealing with rejection of the project report of the respondent by the bank when it held the same to be not viable, and having been never conveyed the reasons, as such we feel that he needs to be compensated. At this stage on behalf of appellants, it was submitted in the alternative without admitting the claim of the respondent, that the compensation awarded is on higher, therefore it needs to be substantially reduced as the appellants were not at fault. Though Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur hastened to add that by making this submission, he is neither admitting nor conceding the claim of the respondent regarding his entitlement for payment of compensation. Whereas in this behalf respondent Mr. Sheetal Kumar pointed out that the compensation awarded may not be interfered with and he prayed for dismissal of this appeal with cost.
15. Ordinarily we would have upheld the submission of respondent keeping in view the stand of appellant-bank in its reply. However we are of the view, that at-least on the date when the reply was filed before District Forum below, respondent was well aware and he could have approached the District Forum below with a prayer that he is meeting the requirements because of which project was not found viable. And the appellant-bank be directed to re-examine the case since all the requirements had been met with. There is nothing on record to suggest anything in this behalf. Respondent submitted that he was personally meeting the bank staff to let him know the reasons. We do not accept his this plea.
16. Now coming to the question as to whether compensation awarded needs to scaled down or not ? We are of the view that compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded is on higher side, thus it needs to scaled down. Accordingly while partly allowing this appeal, compensation is scaled down to Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum on this amount from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 19.06.2006 till the date of payment/deposit whichever is earlier, besides cost as assessed by District Forum below. Order of District Forum Hamirpur in Consumer Complaint No.124/2006, dated 12.03.2009 is modified in these terms and the appeal stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
17. All the interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank has undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules, and office is directed to send the same to Mr. Sheetal Kumar respondent in the same manner.
SHIMLA 27.05.2010 ( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.) President.
(Saroj Sharma) Member.
(Chander Shekher Sharma) Member.
/dinesh/