State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, Orissa State Financial ... vs Smt. Rebati Rani Satpathy, Wife Of ... on 10 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK FIRST APPEAL NO.497 OF 2006 From an order dated 29.04.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kendrapara in C.D. Case No.32 of 2005 1. Branch Manager, Orissa State Financial Corporation, Paradeep Branch, At/P.S. Madhupatna, Dist. Cuttack 2. Managing Director, Orissa State Financial Corporation, O.M.P. Square, P.S. Chauliaganj, Dist. Cuttack 3. Zonal-in-charge, Orissa State Financial Corporation, Zonal Office, At/P.O./P.S./Dist. Kendrapara Appellants -Versus- Smt. Rebati Rani Satpathy, Wife of Adwait Ballav Satpathy, Proprietor, M/s Mani Gudaghu Factory, At Bhagabanpur, P.O./P.S./Dist. Kendrapara Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. S.Rath & Associates For the Respondent : Mr. R.K.Pattnaik & Associates P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT, AND SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER O R D E R
DATE:- The July, 2009.
Justice A.K. Samantaray, President.
This First Appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the District Forum, Kendrapara passed on 29.04.2005 in C.D.Case No.32 of 2005. The appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent-loanee was the complainant before the District Forum. By the impugned order, the District Forum, while allowing the complaint on const against the opposite parties with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant, directed the opposite parties to waive the delayed period interest of Rs.275/- and further directed to give the benefit of O.T.S.Scheme, 2004 to the seed loan of the complainant. There was also a direction to the complainant to repay the seed loan of Rs.8,400/- excluding the interest of Rs.15,244.15 as per the O.T.S.Scheme, 2004 within one month.
2. The complainant-respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging that she had applied to the opposite parties for availing loan against her manufacturing unit named and styled as Mani Gudakhu Factory. The application of the complainant was duly considered and a loan of Rs.50,700/- towards block capital, Rs.8,400/- towards seed loan and Rs.14,470/- towards additional loan, in toto Rs.73,570/-, was sanctioned in her favour in the year 1984. It is her case that the opposite parties did not disburse the sanctioned loan of Rs.73,570/- as they deducted 5% from the total loan amount. The complainant started her unit from 19.04.1987. Thereafter, she started paying the loan dues out of the profit of the unit. It is her further case that her unit became sick in the year 1990 due to loss in the business and as such she requested the opposite parties to declare her unit as sick, but the opposite parties did not do so. She also stated that opposite party no.1, i.e., the Paradeep Branch of the Orissa State Financial Corporation, issued a letter on 03.08.2000 asking her to repay the loan dues. The complainant discussed the matter with the opposite parties, who advised her to come for one time settlement of the loan and avail that benefit. For that purpose, the opposite parties asked her to deposit Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The complainant arranged Rs.18,000/- and deposited the same with the opposite parties in the year 2002, but the opposite parties did not take any action for the O.T.S. of the loan dues of the complainant under the O.T.S.Scheme, 2000. She further alleged that opposite party no.1 again issued the letter dated 16.07.2002 for discussion on O.T.S. of the loan dues. Thereafter, the complainant came across the advertisement published in the daily Oriya newspaper by the opposite parties asking the defaulted loanees to take advantage of the O.T.S.Scheme of the year 2003. The complainant, in response to the advertisement published in the daily newspaper, submitted her application with deposit of Rs.7,400/- for settlement of the loan dues under the O.T.S.Scheme and received the letter dated 25.08.2004 relating to settlement of the loan dues under the Scheme of 2003.In spite of all efforts made by the complainant, the opposite parties did not settle the loan dues of the complainant under the said Scheme, and the complainant received a letter on 27.01.2005 from opposite party no.1, i.e., the Paradeep Branch of the Orissa State Financial Corporation, that her application for O.T.S. had been cancelled. It is the further case of the complainant that five months thereafter, she received a letter dated 5.02.2005 from the same opposite party with regard to O.T.S. of her loan dues, which was Rs.1,51,000/- and that was against the O.T.S.Scheme, 2003 as compound and penal interest were not waived. In such situation, the complainant found herself to be harassed by the opposite parties from time to time and she suffered mental agony, for which the consumer complaint was filed.
3. The opposite parties appeared, filed joint written version and contested the case. It is their case that the complainant is the proprietor of Mani Gudakhu Factory under the District Industries Centre, Cuttack.
She had applied on 01.07.1983 to the Orissa State Financial Corporation for availing loan of Rs.1,20,000/- for manufacturing Gudakhu. The Orissa State Financial Corporation, considering the loan application of the complainant, sanctioned Rs.57,700/- on 09.01.1984. The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite parties and agreed to repay the loan with interest by 27.03.1993. Thereafter, the Financial Corporation sanctioned Rs.8,400/- as seed capital loan and Rs.14,700/- as additional term loan, which were to be repaid by 30.12.1996. Out of the sanctioned loan, the complainant availed Rs.70,050. It is the specific case of the opposite parties that the Financial Corporation is not empowered to declare any unit as a sick one. The complainant, according to them, deposited Rs.18,000/- on 14.01.2002 and the opposite parties issued the letter dated 28.07.2004 to the complainant clearly mentioning therein that the loan amount was settled at Rs.1,68,582/- under the O.T.S.Scheme, 2003. The O.T.S. at Rs.1,51,000/- under the O.T.S.Scheme, 2004 has been correctly computed and there is no illegality.
4. On a reading of the entire judgment, on the basis of which final order has been passed, we come to notice that even after one time settlement was allowed by the competent authority, after perusal of the application and taking into consideration the financial condition of the complainant lastly under the O.T.S. Scheme, 2004, and the term loan account was settled and fixed at Rs.66,l551/- and along with the said amount, the complainant was required to pay Rs.275/- towards delayed period interest., admittedly, the complainant has not paid a single pie, and while filing the complainant, she has raised the question that the amount of Rs.8,400/- under seed loan along with interest of Rs.15,244.15, totaling Rs.23,644.15 was not included in the O.T.S. Scheme.
5. In the body of the impugned judgment at page 6, there is a mention that although this question was raised before the District Forum, the authorized officer of the opposite parties/appellants could not produce before the District Forum any document to show that the aforesaid amount was not to be included under the O.T.S. Scheme and as such the said amount has not been taken into consideration while computing the final amount under the O.T.S. Scheme. However, Mr. Rath, learned counsel who argued the matter here, has produced before us the One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS) - 2004 - Operating Instructions. In the guidelines, at clause 1(xii), there is clear mention that the scheme shall not cover any agency loan (NEF), Seed Capital, Soft loan of Government, Margin Money Assistance, etc. Further, the Scheme shall not be applicable for settlement of HP loan, STWE loan for which separate Scheme is being worked out. Once the loan account is settled, the Corporation shall not be liable for payment of any institutional/statutory dues of any type against the unit. The promoter(s) alone shall be liable for such payment(s).
6. This being the Scheme, as because the Scheme along with the Instructions for consideration of O.T.S. application was not produced by the authorized officer, the District Forum, as it appears, has passed orders directing to include the seed loan in the O.T.S. Scheme and to waive the penal interest of Rs.275/-. When there is clear bar for its inclusion in the O.T.S. Scheme or waiver of any interest by any authority other than the Corporation, the order of the District Forum appears to us to be without jurisdiction. In this connection, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the appellants has cited before us the decision in State Financial Corporation and another v- M/s Jagdamba Oil Mills and another, AIR 2002 SC 834, wherein the Apex Court held that the Corporation is an instrumentality of the State and it deals with public money. There can be no doubt that the approach has to be public oriented. It can operate effectively if there is regular realisation of instalments. While the Corporation is expected to act fairly in the matter of disbursement of the loans, there is corresponding duty cast upon the borrowers to repay the instalments in time, unless prevented by insurmountable difficulties. Regular payment is the rule and non-payment due to extenuating circumstances is the exception. If the repayments are not received as per the scheduled time-frame, it will disturb the equilibrium of the financial arrangements of the Corporations. They do not have at their disposal unlimited funds. They have to cater to the needs of the intended borrowers with the available finance. Non-payment of the instalment by a defaulter may stand on the way of a deserving borrower getting financial assistance. The Apex Court also held that courts cannot act as appellate authorities over the decisions taken by the administrative authorities. Court cannot substitute its judgment unless the action of the administrative authority is unfair and unreasonable. Unless the action is found to be mala fide, even if a wrong decision has been taken by the authority, it is not open to challenge. It is not for the court or a third party to substitute its decision, however more prudent, commercial or businesslike it may, for the decision of the Corporation.
7. In the instant matter, we have observed that from time to time the opposite parties/appellants have afforded opportunities to the complainant to avail the One Time Settlement Scheme, and finally they have brought down the amount of one time settlement to Rs.66,551/-. Still then, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum on the ground that seed capital loan has not been included in the O.T.S. She also made a prayer for waiver of interest. As already stated earlier, the instructions clearly bar inclusion of seed loan in the O.T.S. Thus, inclusion of the same in the O.T.S. and waiver of interest are matters over which the appellants have no jurisdiction. In the circumstances, therefore, we find absolutely no illegality in the action of the opposite parties/appellants in the matter of exclusion of the seed loan amount and interest accrued thereon from the purview of the computation of the O.T.S. amount. Apart from that, the District Forum has absolutely no jurisdiction to interfere with the interest charged by the Corporation, which is managed by a corporate body having its Managing Director and Members. Over their authority, the District Consumer Forum or this Commission has no power to interfere, as the money advanced, as held by the Apex Court, is public money, and no other body or third party can direct waiver of the same, which would go against the scheme itself for which the money is advanced by the Corporation.
8. In the ultimate result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the District Forum, Kendrapara passed on 29.04.2006 in C.D.Case No.32 of 2005. However, we make no order as to cost.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.
.......
(Justice A.K. Samantaray) President ........
(Subash Mahtab) Member