SAMIR KUMAR PATTANAIK vs BANK OF BARODA

THIS is an appeal by the complainant whose complaint petition has been dismissed by the District Forum, Puri.

COMPLAINANT had applied for a loan for Rs. 1,00,000/- under the P.M.R.Y. Scheme for the year 1997-98. His application was duly recommended by the D.I.C. and his select list number was found at Sl. No. 9 as a general category candidate. The Bank received the recommendation from the D.I.C. but did not sanction the loan. Hence he moved the District Forum which dismissed the complaint petition holding that the complainant did not comply with certain requirement as asked by the Bank. The Bank took the stand when the D.I.C. had recommended the case subject to the complainant satisfying the eligibility criteria that the family income of the complainant was less than Rs. 24,000/- per annum.

Heard the complainant himself. Perused the appeal memo seems to have been drafted by the complainant himself covering about 30 pages giving unnecessary lengthy narration of facts though the scope of the case is within a very narrow compass. The complainant also during the course of his submission referred to constitution of Article 19 which we do not find relevant for the purpose.

THE crux of the point is though he deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in his S.B. Account in the respondent''s Bank and also gave out that the requisite amount out of that amount should be taken as margin money for the loan, he was not sanctioned with the loan. Bank''s plea is that the D.I.C. in their recommendation wanted that the complainant should submit the pension book of the father to indicate the family income. Complainant''s case is such production of the pension book of the father was an unnecessary demand from the side of the bank since father''s income should not be taken into account as an income of the family. THE complainant has referred to certain provision of Income Tax Act the xerox copies of which is on record. However, we have not felt it necessary to deal with those provisions since under the common law any separate income of the father by way of pension cannot be taken to be the income for the family, unless it is satisfactorily proved that the complainant was utilising father''s pension as a portion of income for the family. In case, the D.I.C. while recommending the case of the complainant or even the Bank wanted to ascertain that the complainant had an income of more than Rs. 24,000/- certainly they were free to make an inquiry to that effect. This was not so done. That apart they have not tried to find out what was the amount of pension the father was getting. It is also not their case that on inquiry they found that the income of the complainant from his own source coupled with the amount of pension the father was receiving was more than Rs. 24,000/- per annum. Rather the Tehsildar, Puri has given the Annual Income of the complainant to be Rs. 7,800/-. The copy of which is on record. In case the Tehsildar gave the certificate about the income, substantial material should have been available on record to counter from the side of the bank that the complainant was not eligible for the loan because of his income being on the higher side beyond Rs. 24,000/-. We do not find there is any other reasons or grounds for dismissing the case of the complainant merely because the complainant failed to produce the pension book of the father. We hold that this was not the requirement. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and direct the Bank to disburse the loan observing all other formalities if for any reason the margin money is not available with the Bank at present and the same has been already withdrawn by the complainant. The complainant should be asked to furnish the margin money and also to fulfil all other requirements as per any amended rules applicable to the P.M.R.Y. Scheme as they stand today. He should not be asked to file a fresh application for that, once a recommendation is there. The appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.