ORISSA STATE FINANCIAL COMPANY Vs. MOHD AJHAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Orissa State Financial Corporation and Anr. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner ') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission ') in favour of Mohd.Ajhar Ali, Respondent herein, who was the original complainant before the District Forum.

(2.) IN his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent/Complainant had contended that he had been sanctioned a loan of Rs. 15 lakh on 25.8.2000 for construction of a market complex for his own use at Kendrapara town. However, out of the total sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 15 lakh, the Petitioner/Corporation disbursed only Rs. 7 lakh upto 21.9.2001 and did not release the balance amount within the stipulated period of six months from the date of sanction which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement although the Respondent had fully utilized the disbursed loan amount and had also invested 34.57% from his own funds. Being aggrieved, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner be directed to pay him Rs. 4,57,000 as compensation on the following accounts:

(3.) THE District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint by concluding that as per the report of the Court Commissioner i.e. an Executive Engineer who had been appointed to find out the approximate value of the market complex and to verify whether the Respondent had invested 34.57% from his own sources had confirmed that there was no violation of the terms and conditions since Respondent had invested 34.57% of the estimated project cost from his own funds. District Forum directed the Petitioner to pay the Respondent, Rs. 4.25 lakh as compensation towards mental agony, harassment and financial loss, etc. within a period of one month failing which the Petitioners are liable to pay Rs. 500 per day for the delay. The District Forum further observed that as the Respondent had agreed to give up his claim for disbursement of the balance loan amount from the Petitioner, no direction could be issued to Petitioner for releasing or non-releasing the balance loan amount in favour of the Respondent/complainant.