UCO BANK Vs. BHOGALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal arising from the common order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh. It appears that the respondent approached the appellant Bank for facilities sometime, on or about 25th February, 1989 for the first time and got the facilities sanctioned. At the time of approaching the Bank for facilities and opening the Account, no disclosure was made of the fact that the appellant was one of the 1984 riot victim. It was a commercial loan and overdraft facilities were sanctioned on the terms and conditions contained in the sanction letter of the Bank. In the meantime, in the year 1992 the Reserve Bank of India had come out with a scheme of Grant of Interest Subsidy by Nationalised Banks to the 1984 riots victims. This benefit was available, provided the applicants fulfilled certain conditions and not otherwise. Under the said scheme, the lending Banks had to grant that benefit of the said subsidy to the parties who were covered by the term "Deserving Case" as defined under the said Scheme. Such subsidy was not to be granted by the Reserve Bank of India. Under that scheme, every party was required to submit an application and the scheme expired on 31st March, 1994. Incidentally on that very date i.e., the last date, the respondents made an application claiming to be a riot victim and asking for interest subsidy under the Central interest Subsidy Scheme meant for November, 1984 riot victims. Some of the salient features of the said scheme are : "The term 'Deserving Case' is defined as under :

(2.) UNDER that scheme, it was further provided that the Authority which had sanctioned the loan, had the power to determine the 'deserving cases' for interest relief and the Branch where the accounts are being operated shall provide the relief in the 'deserving cases' thus determined. In this case the interest subsidy was initially sanctioned, but lateron when the balance sheets were furnished it transpired from perusal thereof that the respondent was not eligible for such benefit as they did not fall within the definition of the term "deserving case", because right from the year 1989 upto 1992 when the scheme was introduced, it had been showing profits. The Head Office of the appellant as also RBI on an examination of facts and circumstances found the respondent to be not a "deserving case". The matter was taken up with the Banking Ombudsman who also came to the conclusion that the respondent was not entitled to the interest subsidy under the said scheme as it was not a 'deserving case'. The question that the appellant having recommended the respondent's case and having sanctioned the necessary interest subsidy could not at a later date withdraw that benefit on a review without notice to the appellant. Counsel submitted that certain liabilities such as bank charges etc. had not been taken into the balance sheets. If that had been done the balance sheet would have reflected loss.

(3.) ON an inquiry from the Bench, it was stated at the Bar that all the points which arose for consideration before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission including those noticed above, had been raised in defence of such suit and were pending adjudication in that suit.