State Bank of India vs TAMIL NADU CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL

OF the two opposite parties, the 1st Opposite party State Bank of India, Madurai Arasaradi Branch is the Appellant. The 1st complainant is the Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Council, Madurai, representing two persons viz., S. Vijayalakshmi and A. Renuka. The 2nd opposite party is the Pengal Ezhuchi Mayyam represented by its Secretary Kameswari. It appears that the 2nd opposite party consisted of 20 women members. This Body wanted to give training to its members for gam-cutting. In this connection, they wanted to purchase a gem cutting machine. For this, the 1st opposite party Bank gave a loan of Rs. 15,000/- to each of the members. The Madurai Corporation gave a subsidy of Rs. 5,000/- to each Member. With these amounts, 20 machines were purchased and they were placed under one common roof. While so, it appears that there was an internal dispute between the members of the 2nd opposite party and therefore the training programme was not properly run. The rent for the premises was not paid. Electricity charges was also not paid. The members did not pay the due amounts to the Bank. While so, the Bank took custody of the machineries and kept in safe custody. In these circumstances, two members above stated viz., S. Vijayalakshmi and A. Renuka wanted return of two of the machines to them for them to work on and earn their livelihood. The Bank wrote to them saying that it would not be viable and unless and the members joined together there was no possibility of doing the work of gem cutting. It appears that during the course of hearing in the District Forum the Forum suggested that at least a group of five persons may join together and they can get the machinery. But even regarding that, it appears that only the above said two members were willing and though two outsiders could be joined, they could form a group of only four members and, according to the 1st opposite party Bank, this was not viable. Therefore, the 1st opposite party Bank was not willing to give back the machines.

THE Lower Forum, however, on consideration of evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the 1st opposite party Bank, in refusing to give the two machines to the said two members, has committed deficiency of service. On this finding, it has ordered the 1st opposite party Bank to return the two machines to the two members and also to pay to each of them a sum of Rs.1000/- as damages with costs of Rs.250/-. It is against this order the 1st opposite party Bank has filed this appeal. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Appellant (the Counsel for the respondents being absent) and on going through the records in the matter, it appears to us that the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that there was no good understanding between the members of the Pengal Ezhuchi Mayyam; and that the rent and electricity charges for the premises have not been paid and the members also have not paid their dues to the Bank. In Ex. B 5 terms of the scheme condition No. 7 reads as follows :- "It is the responsibility of the Voluntary Agency to secure the three phase connection to the building by this time and for the total expenses incurred for getting the power connection they can submit the bill to the branch Manager. Similarly GEM Park can submit a bill for doing the internal connections."

Condition No. 19 is in the following terms :- "It is the responsibility of the Voluntary Agencies to see as far as possible that there is no drop out from the group. In case there is drop out, the outgoing candidate should remit uptodate interest to the loan account. The liability that is still outstanding in the loan account (after clearing the interest portion) will be transferred in the name of the incoming candidate."

In these circumstances, since as we have stated above there was an internal quarrel between the members of the 2nd opposite party and the rent, electricity charges for the premises have not been paid and dues to the 1st opposite party Bank has also not been paid by them, it appears to be just that the 1st opposite party has taken all the 20 machines into their custody for safer keeping. This being the case, we do not see that there is merit in the contentions of the two members only that they shall be given two machines for them to work on it. Having advanced loan, and purchased the machines and handed over the machines on hire purchase basis, it is quite natural that the 1st opposite party Bank would be interested in safeguarding the machines. Considering thus, it appears to us that the finding of the District Forum that there was deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party Bank cannot be accepted as correct. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant states before us that if there is a group of five persons, even now the Bank is ready to hand over the machines to them. Thus we find merit in the appeal.

ACCORDINGLY the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.