STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE vs Managing Director Kanjirappally Amusemen Park And Hotels Pvt Ltd

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22.05.2008 passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 864/2001 - State Bank of Trvancore & Ors. Vs. The M.D., KanjirappallyAmusemen Park and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent approached OP/petitioners for a term loan of Rs.3 crores for development and improvement in the amenities of the park conducted by him. OP agreed to sanction loan if the project is found viable consequent to a feasibility study of the project by the Technical Consultancy Cell of the bank. Rupees 1,20,250/ - was appropriated from the account of the complainant for this purpose and a feasibility study was conducted by OP wherein complainant had to spend a further sum of Rs.6,228/ - as incidental expenses. Though, technical feasibility study was in favour of the complainant, OP did not sanction loan. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum for refund of Rs.1,20,250/ - and Rs.6,228/ - with interest. OPs contested complaint and submitted that complainant had agreed for payment of Rs.1,20,250/ - for technical feasibility study wherein complainant agreed that amount would not be claimed; even if, no loan was sanctioned to the complainant. It was further submitted that sanctioning of the loan and disbursal of the same was entirely within the jurisdiction of the OP and mere failure to sanction loan would not constitute deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.1,20,250/ - along with 18% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.1,000/ - as cost. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per agreed terms, aforesaid amount was not refundable; even then, learned District Forum committed error in refunding aforesaid amount and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as petitioner without assigning any reason committed deficiency in not sanctioning loan; hence, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of complaint reveals that complaint has not been filed on account of deficiency in sanctioning loan but complaint has been filed for direction to refund Rs.1,20,250/ - along with interest which amount has been charged for technical and feasibility study of the project. In such circumstances, argument of learned Counsel for the respondent is devoid of force that petitioner committed deficiency in not sanctioning loan inspite of favourable technical feasibility report. No such prayer was made in the complaint for grant of compensation for non -sanctioning of loan. As far as refund of Rs.1,20,250/ - is concerned, respondent vide letter dated 9.2.1999 agreed that aforesaid amount towards fee will not be refundable. Letter dated 9.2.1999 runs as under: ''''Sub: Our request for a term loan of Rupees 300 Lakhs. We hereby agree to pay the required fee and other out of pocket expenses to be incurred for conducting a study by the bank ''s Technical Consultancy Cell in connection with our project of setting up a Dry Amusement cum Water Theme Park at Kanjirappilly, Near Chalakudy. We also agree to the bank ''s conditions that: - A. Though a study is conducted by the Technical Consultancy Cell, there is no Commitment on the part of the bank to sanction the loan. B. Where the loan is not sanctioned, the amount recovered towards the fee and out of pocket expenses will not be refunded ''''. Perusal of letter clearly reveals that amount charged for conducting feasibility study by the Technical Consultancy Cell of the bank was non refundable inspite of non -sanctioning of loan. Inspite of clear undertaking of the respondent, learned District Forum committed error in allowing refund of aforesaid amount with interest and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 22.05.2008 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 864/2001 - State Bank of Trvancore & Ors. Vs. The M.D., Kanjirappally Amusemen Park and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and order of District forum dated 14.6.2000 is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.