SRI SHANTHAPPA, GULBARGA vs MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, GULBARGA

THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against the Order dated 13.8.1990 passed by the District Forum, Gulbarga in Complaint No. 28/90/ 587-88 on its file. It arises in this way:-

THE appellant had applied for a loan of Rs. 5,000/- under Self Employment Programme for the Urban Poor Scheme (for short sepup) as per Exhibit P-l dated 7.10.1989. THE Respondent Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,000/- to the appellant and he was paid Rs. 910/- out of that loan and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,090/- was to be paid to the supplier of the materials to the appellant. THE Respondent Bank prepared a DD for that amounted dated 14.3.1990 in favour of Parute Painting House, Gulbarga. In the mean time, according to the Respondent, it came to know that the appellant was a defaulter to the Krishna Grameena Bank, Gulbarga. THErefore, the Respondent cancelled the DD and refused to pay that amount. Hence the appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Gulbarga alleging that the Respondent Bank had wrongly withheld the loan sanctioned to him as he refused to pay the Commission or bribe. The Respondent Bank resisted the complaint by contending inter-alia that after sanctioning the loan to the complainant, they wrote to the Banks in Gulbarga asking as to whether the complainant had taken loan from them and whether he was a defaulter; that on 19.3.1990 officials of Krishna Grameena Bank, Gulbarga enquired on phone about the loan application made by the complainant and they also told that the complainant was a defaulter in payment of the loan taken by him from that Bank; that they also received a letter as per exhibit R-5 to that effect from the Manager of that Bank and that the allegation of the complainant that any commission or bribe was demanded is false. The complainant gave evidence as PW1 and produced Exhibit PI to P6. The Manager of the Respondent Bank gave evidence as RW1 and produced Exhibits R1 to R6. On the said material, the District Forum, Gulbarga reached the conclusion that as the complainant was a defaulter in respect of loan taken by him from Krishna Grameena Bank, the Respondent Bank was justified in refusing to pay the balance amount and dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal by the complainant

The appellant and his Counsel were absent when the appeal was taken up for hearing. We heard the learned Counsel for the Respondent and perused the records.

THE appellant in his appeal memo has stated that he had taken loan from the Krishna Grameena Bank for painting of buildings under General Scheme in 1984. He has also admitted in his evidence that the Krishna Grameena Bank filed a suit against him in respect of that loan; that the suit was decreed and that he has been paying the said loan in instalments. RW 1 has stated that he received Exhibit R-5 from the Manager of the Krishna Grameena Bank stating that the complainant was a defaulter in respect of the loan taken by him from that Bank. Thus it is clear that the complainant was as defaulter to the Krishna Grameena Bank when he applied for loan under the SEPUP Scheme to the Respondent Bank. From Exhibit R-4, it is clear that the applicant should not be a defaulter in respect of a loan for any other purpose from any other Bank. THErefore, we see no force in the contention of the appellant that the loan applied for by him from the Respondent Bank was under a different scheme. In view of that the Respondent Bank was justified in cancelling the order sanctioning loan to the complainant and withholding the payment of the remaining amount In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.