RANDHIR SINGH vs PATIALA CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.

PETITIONER was the complainant. His application for grant of loan of Rs. 10 lakh under the margin money subsidy scheme of K.V.I.C. was passed by Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board, Patiala. After completing formalities the petitioner was given loan of Rs. 7 lakh for building sheller and CC of Rs. 3 lakh by the respondent/opposite party bank. Out of this loan amount, an amount of Rs. 4 lakh was to be given by way of subsidy by K.V.I.C. to the respondent bank subject to certain conditions. PETITIONER alleged that the respondent bank did not write to Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board for disbursement of subsidy of Rs. 4 lakh. Thus, alleging deficiency in service the petitioner filed complaint which was contested by the respondent. In written statement the plea taken by the respondent was that the petitioner had misused the loan amount and instead of installing new machinery he purchased a sick unit which was being run by a tractor engine. PETITIONER also did not pay even a single instalment of the loan to the respondent. The respondent bank was, thus, not bound to write to the said Board for payment of subsidy amount. District Forum dismissed the complaint by the order dated 29.9.2003. Appeal filed against District Forum''s order by the petitioner was also dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 11.10.2005.

IN support of the plea raised in written version the respondent had filed affidavit of Prem Chand, Manager by way of evidence before the District Forum. Application for obtaining loan filed by the respondent (copy at page 68) would show that loan was obtained for setting up rice sheller. Copy of scheme is at pages 82 to 94. Para Nos. 1, 4 and 5 of the affidavit of said Prem Chand, Manager, are material for deciding this revision and the same are reproduced below: "1. That about the purchase of sick industry unit, it is submitted as the information has been received the said unit was earlier in the name of Tarsem Singh, father of the complainant. Father of the complainant Tarsem Singh had taken the loan from PFC and he failed to clear the loan amount. Ultimately complainant in connivance with the PFC cleverly purchased the said unit which clearly shows the conduct of the complainant.

That on the request of the complainant due to non-availability of the electricity in the unit, prior permission has been taken by the complainant from the Manager, Co-operative Bank to run the unit on diesel engine. It is pertinent to mention here that in spite of this all these complainant only installed a small motor engine which has been run by a tractor as such there is no unit of sheller, only a small flour mill has been installed by the complainant and complainant cleverly taken the loan from the bank by giving false representation and trying to grab the loan amount. IN this regard opposite party/deponent i.e., Manager, Bhunerheri Branch has already given information to their Head Office and also to Khadi and Village INdustry Board, Patiala. Photocopy of the same is enclosed herewith.

That under the KVI scheme an amount of Rs. 4 lakh out of the loan of Rs. 10 lakh was to be given to Punjab Khadi and Village INdustries, Board to the bank but in this case opposite party could sent the application to the Punjab Khadi and Village INdustry, after verification, opposite party/deponent found that complainant misused the loan amount already taken by him and complainant also failed to fulfil the terms and conditions of the sanctioning of the loan amont as such complainant should instal a new unit, new machinery with electric connection, etc. but it has been found that the said unit is sick unit, not new unit, old machinery has been installed there and some small unit only there which has been run by a tractor engine and there was no work. Moreover, no instalment has been paid by the complainant as per terms and conditions. So, it clearly shows the conduct of the complainant as complainant is misusing the loan amount taken by him. However, opposite party is not bound to send the application to Punjab Khadi and Village INdustries Board, Patiala."

Submission advanced by Mr. K.L. Dangi for petitioner is that the averments made in said paragraphs of affidavit are factually wrong and the petitioner did purchase rice sheller and copy of the bill is placed on file. On inquiry if any affidavit controverting the said affidavit of Prem Chand, Manager and/or the seller of the rice sheller was filed by the petitioner before the District Forum, Mr. Dangi replied in negative. Mr. Dangi also admits that no application was filed by the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination of the above Manager of the respondent bank. In absence of filing of affidavit controverting the affidavit of the said Manager and/or the seller of the rice sheller concerned or cross-examination of the Manager, there seems to be absolutely no reason to disbelieve what is stated in para Nos. 1, 4 and 5 of the said affidavit. Admittedly, petitioner has not paid a single instalment of the loan taken from the respondent. In this backdrop and also taking note of the scheme we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.