(Delivered on 30th March 2015) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.1.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum Hingoli partly allowing consumer complaint No.28/11 directing appellant/org.opponent No.1 bank to disburse sanctioned loan Rs.4,75,000/- to the complainant/respondent No.1 and further to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.3000/- towards deficiency in service & mental agony and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceeding. F.A.No.:47/2012 2 (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as opponent bank and respondent No.1 Sunita Kadam as complainant. Whereas respondent No.2 District Manager, Khadi Gramodyog as opponent No.2)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Complainant Smt.Sunita Kadam is a educated unemployed woman wanted to avail bank loan under Prime Minister's employment generation program(PMEGP). Therefore on her application which was made through opponent No.2 Khadi Gramodyog Centre loan of Rs.4,75,000/- was granted under KVIB of PMEGP. However, opponent bank did not disburse the loan amount despite repeated request of complainant. It is averred by the complainant that though no guarantee was required, opponent bank was insisting her to deposit amount of Rs.3 lakhs. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent bank complainant has filed consumer complaint seeking direction for disbursement of sanctioned loan amount. She has further claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss etc.
3. Opponent bank by its written version resisted the complaint on the following among other grounds:- It did not dispute that on the basis of scrutiny of the loan documents which were received through opponent No.2 loan of Rs.4,75,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant under KVIB of PMEGP for running garment shop. It is submitted that intimation of sanction and disbursement was given to the sponsor agency KVIB which was subject to compliance of various terms and conditions by the complainant. However, it is denied that complainant was asked for depositing of Rs.3 lakhs etc. It is further submitted that after F.A.No.:47/2012 3 sanctioning loan it received an application sent by somebody from village intimating that complainant's husband has already availed benefit under the same scheme by availing loan and therefore complainant is not entitled to avail the same facility. Therefore it was required to make enquiry and during the enquiry it is revealed that complainant's husband has availed the loan facility and also committed default in repayment of the loan. It is submitted that according to the same scheme if any person from same family has availed loan facility other member is not entitled to get benefit of the same facility. Further during the enquiry it is revealed that complainant had filed false certificate about her skill and experience of stitching of readymade garments. Further she has produced false certificate about availability of rented premises. In short, it is submitted that as complainant had suppressed such facts, it has rightly withheld loan amount, but the complainant has filed false case so as to pressurise the bank to disburse loan amount. It has denied all other adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint .
4. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that opponent bank committed deficiency in service by withholding sanctioned loan amount. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum District Consumer Forum has allowed the complainant's claim as noted above.
5. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order opponent bank came to this Commission in appeal.
6. We heard learned counsel for both side at length and perused the written notes of arguments submitted by them. We have perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint , written version and other documents. F.A.No.:47/2012 4
7. Almost all the facts except non-disbursement of sanctioned loan amount on the ground that complainant had suppressed fact about availing the same loan facilities by her husband and further producing false documents about her experience and rented premises are not disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether opponent bank has legally withheld the loan amount or not?
8. Shri.P.B.Paithankar learned counsel appearing for the opponent bank submitted that as per guidelines of the Prime Minister Employment Generation Program(PMEGP) only one person from one family is eligible for obtaining financial assistance for setting up projects under PMEGP. If any other family member has already availed government subsidy under any other scheme of government, is not entitled. He has also produced same guidelines and pointing out the same guidelines submitted that since undisputedly Vasantrao Kadam who is the husband of complainant has already availed bank loan facilities and committed default in repayment of loan, complainant was not eligible for getting any facility under the same scheme. But without disclosing the fact of availing loan facility by her husband she filed application and when the opponent bank received application from unknown person it made enquiry and came to know that complainant is not eligible for the same scheme. Therefore though the loan was sanctioned opponent bank has rightly withheld loan amount. In support of this submission he has also produced extract of loan account which reflects that husband of complainant had availed loan under seed capital scheme( ) though not under PMEGP. It also reflects that husband of complainant was defaulter in repayment of loan amount. This certificate is also not disputed by Shri.Adkine learned counsel for the complainant. But according to him though the complainant's husband availed loan facility he has not availed any subsidy under any other government scheme and therefore as per guidelines under PMEGP scheme, F.A.No.:47/2012 5 complainant cannot be debarred etc. Mr.Paithankar learned counsel for the opponent bank though submitted that complainant's husband availed the loan facility from government could not point out whether complainant's husband availed any subsidy under any other scheme so as to debar the complainant from availing the scheme under PMEGP. Therefore contention of opponent bank that it has rightly withheld loan amount, on thus point cannot be accepted.
9. However, Mr.Paithankar learned counsel for the opponent bank submitted that after sanctioning the loan when opponent bank made enquiry about genuineness of the certificate pertain to her experience of complainant and rented premises it was revealed that those certificates were false and therefore opponent bank has rightly withheld loan amount. In support this contention he has produced copy of application of Shri.Sachin Suryakant Gundewar which reflects that he never issued any experience certificate to complainant Smt.Sunita Kadam. On the contrary it further reflects that said Shri.Sachin Gundewar is not running business of garment. This application is neither disputed by complainant nor produced any affidavit of said Shri.Sachin Gundewar to falsify the contention of appellant bank that she had filed false experience certificate etc. Therefore we have no hesitation to accept the argument of Mr.Paithankar learned counsel for the opponent bank that complainant has produced false experience certificate so as to avail the loan facilities.
10. Further Mr.Paithankar learned counsel for the opponent bank submitted that in order to avail the facility under PMEGP scheme complainant has also produced false project showing rented premises. But on enquiry it was found that there was no such rental shop. In support of this submission opponent bank has also produced copy of letter dated 13.5.2011 of Branch Manager which reflects that Branch Manager of opponent bank has made enquiry to verify that F.A.No.:47/2012 6 complainant had filed false experience certificate as well as agreement pertain to the rented premises etc. Even then complainant has not produced any record showing genuineness of the project report and experience certificate but it appears from the copy of impugned judgment and order that District Consumer Forum without properly considering evidence on record, wrongly jumped to the conclusion that opponent bank has committed deficiency in service by withholding sanctioned loan amount etc.
11. Mr.Adkine learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that once opponent bank has sanctioned loan by making scrutiny of the documents, it has no right to withhold the loan amount. To which, it is denied by Mr.Paithankar learned counsel for the opponent bank and submitted that though loan was sanctioned on the basis of documents produced by complainant, when it was brought to the notice of bank that the documents are fake, it has every right to withhold the loan amount. He has also supported his contention by relying on the decisions of Hon'ble National Commission in following cases.
i) Kalika Choubey -Vs- State Bank of India in Revision petition No. 2943/06 decided on 02.07.2012, ii) Laxmi Fabricators & Ors. -Vs- Union Bank of India & Ors., in original petition No.247/1992 decided on 22.12.1993, iii) Branch Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. -Vs- Sunderlal Kela in Revision petition No.267/94 decided on 17.5.1995.
12. We have gone through all these decisions of Hon'ble National Commission and we find that these decisions are perfectly applicable to the present case and therefore we have no hesitation to hold that though opponent bank sanctioned loan, it has every discretion to F.A.No.:47/2012 7 withhold it as it was sanctioned on the basis of fake documents produced by complainant.
13. For the foregoing reasons it is obvious that opponent bank has not committed deficiency in service by not disbursing the sanctioned loan. But it appears from the copy of impugned judgment and order that District Consumer Forum without considering the evidence on record properly jumped to the wrong conclusion that opponent bank has committed deficiency in service by withholding loan amount etc. Such erroneous findings cannot be sustained.
14. In the result, appellant/opponent bank succeeds and appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the following order. O R D E R
1. Appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order is set aside.
2. Consumer complaint No.28/11 stands dismissed.
3. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case we direct the parties to bear their own cost.
4. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties. Sd/- Sd/- Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane