Master Drillers Nagpur vs Nagpur Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd

THIS complaint by M/s. Master Drillers and its partners under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 4986 is directed against the Nagpur Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and its Chairman as also against District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur and seeks compensation, damages and loss caused to the complainants in their business due to alleged deficiency and defect in the services provided by the first and second opposite parties.

IT is unnecessary to note the facts in detail as we are inclined because of the allegations in complaint and version of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to leave the complainants to its remedy of suit or other appropriate proceedings. Sensing this Commissions reaction at the hearing on 21st December, 1995 the complainant has submitted a written note of arguments that the points involved for adjudication by this Commission do not involve either disputed questions of facts or complicated questions relating to Banking practice and procedure. The complainant has framed these questions : (1) Whether the respondent -Bank has discharged its obligation of disbursing the cash credit loan to the extent of Rs. 14,53,700/ - as per the Agreement dated 16th Sep., 1985 at Annexure R -3 Page 212;

(2) Whether the complainants were under obligation to make the payment of Bank guarantee instalments on its due dates to the respondent -Bank or to the Manufacturer, particularly in view of the Agreement dated 16th Sep., 1985 at Annexure R -3 Page No. 212;

(3) Whether it was permissible for the/ respondent -Bank to recover unpaid Bank guarantee instalments from the Book Debt A/c, as shown in Annexures - 7A to 7 -D, Page Nos. 82 to 86 by exercising right of general lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act;

(4) If these questions are answered in favour of the complainants, then whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the complaint.

The case of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in the nutshell is that the complainants had approached the Bank for financial assistance through good office of certain social and well known persons and therefore the Bank granted a deferred payment Bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 14,53,700/ - initially and other facilities such as book -debt, vehicle loan etc. from time to time to enable the complainants to start the business of drilling bore wells. It is pleaded that 90% of the cost of the Rig Machine Unit was accepted, by Bank and the machine was made available to the complainants on their paltry investment of about less than 10% of the total costs. At the relevant time, Maharashtra, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh Governments had taken a crash programme of drilling bore wells by tapping underground water resources, that a dozen of entrepreneurs entered in this profitable business and earned huge profits except the complainants who failed to cash the scheme floated by the various State Governments and incurred loss because of their incompetence, inexperience, lack of dashing courage and laying blame at the doors of Bank with ulterior and mala fide motives and that the complainants failed to discharge their liabilities under the said facilities. It is also pleaded that the present complaint is filed only as a counter blast to the recovery proceedings initiated by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 against the complainants to the tune of Rs. 9,14,329.68 together with interest. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have filed an application before the District Deputy Registrar, Nagpur under Sec. 101 of the Maharashtra Co -opertive Societies Act, 1960 for grant of recovery certificate for the said sum of Rs. 9,14,329.67 due and payable by the complainants to the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.

AS the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have already initiated proceedings before the Competent Authority for the recovery of the amount due against the complainants, we are not inclined to go into this complaint on merits and leave it to the complainants to defend those proceedings and raise all questions available to the complainant in those proceedings or any other proceedings. The complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.