AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 31.03.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Odisha (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 334 and 337 of 2002 in which order dated 29.04.2002 of Bolangir District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 38 of 2001 was challenged, inter alia praying for :
(i) Setting aside the order dated 31.03.2017 of the State Commission.
(ii) Directing the Respondents to adjust the principal amount against the cash security i.e. the fixed deposit of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% and excess deposit of Rs.20,000/- alongwith 12% interest and the admitted repayment of Rs.80,000/- made by complainant.
(iii) Direct the respondents to not charge any interest on loan as it was a defective advance and further to discharge the present Appellants from the bad loan.
(iv) Direct the respondents to provide compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- jointly and severally for causing mental pain, agony, distress to the Petitioners and also for the negligence and deficiency of service and award a cost of Rs.25,000/-.
Both the Petitioners and the Respondents filed separate Appeals before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum which was disposed of vide order common order dated 31.03.2017.
The original complainant, namely, Allahadini Baboo died during the pendency of the case, therefore, she was substituted by her legal heirs, who are Revision Petitioners in the present case.
Notice was issued to the Respondents on 20.12.2017. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 13.06.2023 ( Petitioner ) and 19.11.2018 ( respondents) respectively.
Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that in order to earn her livelihood, the original complainant Allahadini Baboo ( dead ) intended to open a small scale industry i.e. Msala Grinder and Atta Factory’ in the name of style of ‘Sarada Enterprises’ on the financial assistance of OP No.1 and 2 ( before the District Forum ). She applied to OP No.2 for sanction of loan of Rs.2.00 lacs for establishing and running the unit, who sent the proposal to OP no.3 and on being satisfied, OP No.3 recommended for sanction of loan of Rs.1,60,000/- ( Rs.80,000/- as cash credit and Rs.80,000/- as term loan). Relying on the recommendation of OP no.3, OP No.1 sanctioned the loan of Rs.2.00 lacs and pursuant to the sanction order, complainant deposited Rs.40,000/- towards F.I.T. in the Bank towards security deposit. The OP No.2 disbursed the term loan of Rs.60,000/- towards working capital and the complainant started her unit. However, Rs.40,000/- was not disbursed in her favour and she faced problem to run the unit. Being aggrieved, the original complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 29.04.2002 directed OP No.2 to transfer the matured amount of Rs.80,000/- and the balance loan amount of Rs.25,000/- , totaling a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- to the cash credit account of the original complainant to enable her to run the unit. Being aggrieved, both the Petitioners and the Respondents filed separate Appeals before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum. Petitioners filed Appeal No. 334 of 2002 which was dismissed by the State Commission and the Respondents filed Appeal No. 337 of 2002 which was allowed by the State Commission. Both the appeals were disposed of vide order common order dated 31.03.2017. Therefore, the Petitioners are before this Commission now in the present RP.
Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 31.03.2017 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
i. The State Commission erred in disregarding that the respondent no.2 had erroneously construed the entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as term loan due to which the original complainant could not avail the working capital of Rs.1,00,000/- under the cash credit facilities.
ii. The State Commission erred that despite the admission made by the respondents in their written statement that the cash credit is the working capital loan, respondent no.2 did no equate the cash credit with the working loan. Moreover, there was no interest determined by the respondent and, therefore, neither it was possible to fix the instalments nor was it possible for the original complainant to make repayment of the said loan.
iii. The State Commission erred in disregarding that by making the entire amount as term loan, the respondents had deprived the original complainant from availing the required facilities.
iv. State Commission erred in disregarding that the original complainant had made payment of Rs.80,000/- within two years from the moratorium period and if this amount would have been treated as the payment towards term loan, as per the scheme prepared by the D.I.C.Bolangir, then it would have exceeded its required payment.
v. State Commission while erroneously holding that no margin money was paid by the original complainant, disregarded that the original complainant had made a single fixed deposit of Rs.40,000/- towards cash security. The Respondent have stated in their appeal No.337 of 2002 that the original complainant had deposited the cash security on two different dates and this categorically indicates that there must be two fixed deposits of the original complainants and if there is a single fixed deposit of Rs.40,000/-, then rest Rs.20,000/- is the margin money.
vi. State Commission erred in disregarding that as per the sanction order, the original complainant had to deposit Rs.40,000/- in F.I.D., which was deposited, however, the respondent released Rs. 1,000/- at a very belated stage and therefore, no interest on the loan amount ought to have been awarded.
No one appeared at the time of final arguments. However, matter is taken up on merits based on available records and brief of written arguments filed by the parties. Petitioner in his written submission stated that attitude of the respondents no. 1 and 2 became hurdle in the smooth functioning of the unit. The experts of DIC, Balangir had limited the term loan to Rs. 80,000/- only to limit the instalment to meet term loan along with the accrued interest on the loan. The Branch Manager of the District Central Cooperative Bank, Balangir, the respondentno.2 instead of abiding the loan sanctioned order or following the due procedure, adopted his own policy and whimsically categorized the entire sanctioned amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as Term Loan, as a result of which, their mother, the original complainant, could not avail the working capital of Rs.1,00,000/- under the cash credit facility. It is further averred in the written submissions that, in the cash credit loan, there is immediate liquidation facility and no instalment is fixed for its repayment and the loanee has multiple choice of managing the said cash credit account, which is not possible in case of Term Loan. Therefore, their mother complainant was deprived of this privilege. By doubling the term loan from one lac to two lacs, the instalment also became double, putting the loanee under extreme pressure for repayment. It is further averred in the written arguments that when the issue of working capital was brought to the notice of the Branch Manager / Respondent no.2, he again forwarded the same to Respondent no.1 which was duly sanctioned with the note ‘As proposed allowed the working capital loan of Rs.40,000/-’. Hence, this was the only working capital for the unit as it has a cash credit account. According to sanction order, when the original complainant made down payment of Rs.20,000/-, the Bank forced her for a fixed deposit of Rs.40,000/- and accordingly the original complainant made a single fixed deposit as it was cash security for the loan. In the further written submissions , same points are repeated which are stated in para 6 ( v and vi), hence the same are not being repeated here. Reliance is placed on the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Constructions ( P) Ltd. & Anr.
In the written submissions filed by the respondents, it is stated that loanee did not deposit Rs.40,000/- towards margin money as per clause 1 (b) of the Sanction letter which is mandatory clause and, therefore, banks have no power to release the margin money without recommendation of D.I.C. Loan has drawn Rs.15,000/- on 23.09.2000 and in the sanction order, it has been clearly stipulated that loanee shall remit to the Bank Rs.40,000/- which shall be utilized as down payment and balance amount would be the loan. Hence, the non-deposit of margin money by the loanee violate the terms and conditions of sanction letter Ex. A, which does not confcer any relief to the loanee. Further, it is stated in the written submissions that present case is not maintainable as per Section 121 of Co-operative Societies Act, as for any co-operative dispute regarding dispute in loan, the same is governed by Special Statute under section 67 and 68 of State Co-operative Societies Act. Further, there is no prayer for release of rest margin money Rs.25,000/- out of Rs.40,000/-. The present revision is barred by limitation and hence not maintainable.
We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties as contained in their written arguments. We see merit in the contention of the Petitioners herein. The District Forum has in its majority decision given a well-reasoned order. In our considered view, the State Commission went wrong in reversing a well-reasoned order, hence it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. Respondents herein shall implement the order within 30 days of this order.
The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.