Pcardb vs SATBIR SINGH

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.6.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, "the State Commission ") in Appeal No. 789 of 2011 -PCARDB v. Satbir Singh and Ors. by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No. 1 had raised a loan of Rs. 4,00,000 from petitioner/opposite party in order to run his soap manufacturing unit. The loan was sanctioned by OP/Respondent No. 2 by mortgaging the immovable property of the complainant and loan amount was to be disbursed to the complainant in three instalments. First instalment of Rs. 1,75,000 was disbursed on 13.3.2009 and second instalment of Rs. 1,00,000 was disbursed on 30.3.2009 to the complainant, but the third instalment of Rs. 1,25,000 was withheld by opposite party. Complainant served notice on the opposite party for release of third instalment, but opposite party vide its order dated 19.8.2009 informed that for want of utilization certificate of two instalments, third instalment of loan could not be disbursed. In such circumstances, complainant alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties filed complaint. Opposite parties filed written statement and took the plea that complainant did not properly utilize first two instalments so the third instalment could not be validly released, hence, complaint may be dismissed. Learned District Forum vide order dated 27.4.2011 allowed complaint and directed opposite party to release third instalment of Rs. 1,25,000 to the complainant within a period of one month and further awarded Rs. 1,00,000 as litigation expenses. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission and the learned State Commission vide its impugned order dismissed appeal. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that third instalment of loan could not have been released in the absence of utilisation certificates as per rules and further submitted that utilisation certificate issued by the Branch Manager and Field Officer was false and petitioner has not committed any deficiency in not releasing third instalment, hence, revision petition be accepted and order of learned State Commission and District Forum may be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-1/complainant submitted that proper utilisation certificate was given by concerned officers of opposite party and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that Branch Manager and Field Officer of the opposite party had issued utilisation certificate dated 30.4.2009 to the complainant in which it was specifically mentioned that complainant had utilised earlier two instalments of loan amount. Further, this certificate was affirmed by report dated 3.6.2009 submitted by the Branch Manager and Field Officer of the Petitioner Bank. It appears that another Branch Manager also inspected the site on 30.4.2009 and submitted his report on 2.5.2009 in which it was mentioned that he visited the site of the complainant on 30.4.2009 for checking utilisation of loan amount and found that borrower (complainant) has not purchased the material according to the bills and only temporary arrangement was made by the borrower for the eyewash. It was further observed in the report that borrower manipulated reports with the help of Field Officer, Om Prakash and Branch Manager, Om Prakash and both the officers issued false loan utilisation certificate. It is not clear whether there were two Branch Managers of the Petitioner Branch at Bawal and what was the occasion for second Branch Manager to inspect the site after two days when Field Officer and Branch Manager had already reported about utilisation of loan instalments. Second report of Branch Manager also speaks about temporary arrangement of material. In such circumstances, it appears that amount of earlier two instalments had been utilised by the complainant and the third instalment of loan was not released by the Petitioner Bank which amounted to deficiency in service and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that petitioner has taken disciplinary action against the defaulting Field Officer and Branch Manager for giving false utilisation certificates and in such circumstances, it may be held that utilisation certificates procured from the Field Officer and the Branch Manager were not true. This argument is devoid of force as no such plea has been taken by the petitioner in the written statement filed before the learned District Forum and only revision petition discloses this fact that charge-sheet dated 30.4.2010 has been issued to the delinquent officials. Complainant is not concerned with this charge-sheet and this fact should have been brought to the notice of District Forum and necessary documents should have been filed along with written statement before the District Forum which passed the judgment after one year of the alleged charge-sheet. In such circumstances, cognizance of charge-sheet cannot be taken for setting aside impugned order.

PERUSAL of record reveals that out of Rs. 4,00,000 sanctioned loan, Rs. 2,75,000 had been disbursed to the complainant and only loan of Rs. 1,25,000 was withheld and for this deficiency, learned District Forum has awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 which has been upheld by the learned State Commission. It appears that this amount of damages is on very higher side. In such circumstances, we deem it proper to reduce the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000 instead of Rs. 1,00,000.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part and order of learned State Commission dated 21.6.2011 and order of District Forum dated 27.4.2011 are modified to the extent that complainant/respondent is entitled to get damages of Rs. 50,000 instead of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded by the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.