GURMEET KAUR Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURMEET Kaur appellant applied to Punjab Scheduled Caste, Soil Development and Financial Corporation, Muktsar Branch (in short "the Corporation") for the grant of loan to the tune of Rs. 30,000 for purchasing the buffaloes. The Corporation recommended this application to the respondents. The appellant was entitled to Rs. 6,000 as subsidy from the Corporation. The respondents sanctioned the loan and First Instalment of Rs. 13,000 was released on 6.12.2000 out of which Rs. 3,000 were against subsidy. The appellant had added Rs. 1,000 from her pocket and purchased the buffalo for a sum of Rs. 14,000. It was got insured from the United India Insurance Company Limited, Bathinda on 26.1.2001. The said buffalo fell ill on 23.2.2001 and died.

(2.) IT was further pleaded that the appellant had applied to the respondents for the release of Second Instalment but they failed to do so. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents in withholding the second instalment of the loan amount the appellant filed the complaint against the respondents in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "District Forum") for the release of the loan amount and for compensation, interest and costs.

(3.) THE respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that the appellant was resident of Guniana Road, Muktsar. It was pleaded that she had applied for the loan amount of Rs. 20,000. It was not denied that Rs. 6,000 were the amount of subsidy. It was admitted that the respondents had released an amount of Rs. 13,000 to the appellant out of which Rs. 3,000 were the amount of subsidy. It was also not denied that the appellant had purchased a buffalo for an amount of Rs. 14,000 and she had got it insured on 26.1.2001. It was, however, denied that if the appellant had deposited the instalments in time. It was pleaded that the appellant had committed default in payment of instalments. It was also denied if the appellant had completed the formalities in filing the insurance claim. Since the appellant had become defaulter in the repayment of first instalment, therefore, as per the policy of the respondents the amount of second instalment could not be released. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.