MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. P KARUPPIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent/complainant in this action, despite service of process had chosen to remain absent. We are inclined to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing arguments of learned Counsel Mr. Shahul Hameed representing P. Deivasigamani and Associates appearing for the appellant/2nd opposite party Bank and on perusal of the materials placed on record.

(2.) The complainant is an Adi Dravida. He applied for the sanction of a loan to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to develop his furniture mart. The 1st opposite party Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation Ltd. , (TAHDCCO) had actually recommended the sanction of the loan by the 2nd opposite party State Bank of India, Devakottai Branch. If the loan of Rs.50,000/- is sanctioned, the 1st opposite party TAHDCCO would grant a subsidy of Rs.15,000/- and margin money of Rs.10,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- is to be sanctioned by way of a loan by the 2nd opposite party State Bank of India, Devakottai. The proposal as submitted by the 1st opposite party was not acceptable to the 2nd opposite party State Bank of India. They had taken into account the credit needs of the complainant, the marketability of the product, the repaying capacity of the complainant and other relevant factors in assessing the quantum of loan to which the complainant was entitled. After taking all those factors into consideration, they came to the conclusion that the complainant was eligible to get a loan of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of the subsidy and the margin money. The complainant also gave a letter to the 2nd opposite party State Bank of India accepting the loan of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of the subsidy and margin money. This was duly intimated by the 2nd opposite party State Bank of India to the 1st opposite party TAHDCCO. The 1st opposite party in turn intimated the 2nd opposite party that they are having a policy to sanction subsidy and margin amounts only to persons who have been sanctioned loan to the minimum of Rs.35,000/- and consequently they expressed their inability to sanction subsidy and margin money for the sanction of loan of Rs.20,000/- by the 2nd opposite party State Bank of India. In such a situation, the Bank was unable to sanction even the loan of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of the subsidy and margin money to the complainant.

(3.) The aggrieved complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below that the non-sanctioning of the loan amount by the 2nd opposite party State Bank of India on the facts and in the circumstances of the case would tantamount to deficiency in service on their part and consequently he is entitled to compensation for the mental agony and anguish he has suffered as a consequence of the non-sanctioning of the loan by the 2nd opposite party State Bank of India.