BANK OF MADURAI LTD Vs. ELIZEBATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pasumpon Mathuranayagam Thevan District dated 92 in O. P.62/91. The opposite parties are the appellants.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that she applied to the third opposite party for a loan of Rs.2,40,000.00 for starting a poultry farm. The third opposite party promised to consider her case after she started the poultry with her won funds. Accordingly the complainant borrowed several sums of money to started the poultry on an investment of Rs.1,50,000.00 about six months after the starting of this poultry, the complainant approached the third opposite party for the loan. She was advanced a loan of Rs.20,000.00 on 11/8/1990 as first instalment and another sum of Rs.20,000.00 on 28/8/1990 in all Rs.40,000.00. The third opposite party did not advance any further sum. Subsequently on 23/4/1991 the complainant submitted a project report and applied for a loan of Rs.7,95,400.00 for the expansion of the poultry. The third opposite party promised to recommend the loan and the poultry was inspected by the Agricultural Officer of the Bank but no loan was ultimately sanctioned. The complainant was unable to repay the loan borrowed already and she was not in a position to run the poultry properly, because of the failure of the opposite parties to advance the loan as promised. She therefore filed this complaint for directing the opposite party to advance the loan and pay compensation in the sum of Rs.75,000.00.

(3.) The opposite parties resisted the complaint. It is pointed out that the complainant approached the third opposite party, Branch Manager for a poultry layer farm loan with a project outlay of Rs.3 lakhs, but her request could not be entertained since some of the poultry loans sanctioned were not successful. After starting the poultry farm with her own funds, the complainant again applied for a loan for working capital and as recommended by their' Agricultural Officer, a sum of Rs.20,000.00 was sanctioned on 2/7/1990 and another sum of Rs.20,000.00 on 26/10/1990. The above loans were sanctioned as per the NABAD guidelines. The complainant found it difficult to run the poultry farm successfully and profitably due to several facts such as the complainant was working at Trichy and her husband visited the farm only on Sundays. There was no technically qualified persons or skilled laborers. The average yield was low. The mortality of birds was high. There was no separate provision for laying of eggs and no proper records for income and expenditure. The complainant did not also pay the loan arrears. In spite of this position, the complainant again applied for a loan of Rs.7,95,400.00 on 27/4/1991 for starting a layer unit of 5000 birds capacity and the same was not sanctioned by the Central Officer based on the inspection of the Agricultural Officer. There was therefore no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.