BRANCH MANAGER ALLAHABAD BANK Vs. RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.2.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sonebhadra in Complaint Case No.31/99.

(2.) The complainant Rajendra Pratap Singh had preferred an application before the Fish Farmer Development Agency, Sonebhadra (hereinafter called as FFDA) for recommending loan for pisci-culture. The loan under the scheme had a provision of 25% of the total amount sanctioned as grant of the Government through FFDA. The application for loan was considered alongwith the other applications of the selected applicants in the District and the complainant was one of them. In favour of those selected for sanction of loan, the necessary papers were sent by FFDA to the Allahabad Bank, Salkhan Branch. The complainant pursued his case for disbursement of loan for 7/8 months but the opposite party, Allahabad Bank ultimately refused to sanction the loan and sent back the file of the complainant on 1.2.1999 with the observations that the complainant and the members of his family have already taken loan on different counts and this resulted into difficulty in the recovery. A copy of this intimation sent to the FFDA was also endorsed to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he has been taking crop loan from 1990 onwards and has been clearing dues by 30th June every year. The complainant is not a defaulter of the Bank. The complainant gave a legal notice to the opposite party also but the opposite party simply did not do anything. Thereafter the complainant lodged a claim before the District Forum praying for direction to be given to the opposite party for sanction of loan already recommended by FFDA. A compensation of Rs.50,000/- was also prayed to be awarded for mental torture, running here and there and for cost of the litigation.

(3.) In the written version before the District Consumer Forum, the opposite party, Allahabad Bank admitted that recommendation for sanction of loan was sent to it but the function of the FFDA is to select the eligible applicants and the rest work in regard to sanction of loan was to be done by the Bank. The Bank has a definite procedure to sanction the loan thereafter and it is the responsibility of the Bank to sanction the loan to the right person. The loan recommended to be sanctioned was for the purposes of improvement of pond and pisci-culture but the letter of recommendation did not contain the title and details of the pond to be improved for pisci-culture purposes. The complainant had also not given such details to the Bank. The officers of the Bank were also deputed for site inspection but the pond in question was not shown to those officers. If there is no pond on which the pisci-culture is to be done, there is no question of improvement of the same. The complainant was not found eligible for sanction of loan. The grand-mother of the complainant had taken a loan for the tractor and the same has not been fully recovered. The brother of the complainant had been sanctioned crop loan which too has not been recovered. The complainant was also given agricultural loan. Thus the members of the family are in the habit of taking loans from the Bank from time to time. The Bank is not bound to provide the credit facility in every case and, therefore, there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank specially when no consideration has been paid by the complainant and does not become the consumer of the Bank unless the loan is sanctioned. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation etc.