PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. SATYA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -heard. WITH a view to help educated youth to earn their livelihood by self-employment the Govt. of India had floated a scheme known as "pradhan Mantri Rojgar Yojana". According to that scheme the unemployed youth were to be sanctioned loans upto a certain limit and disbursement thereof after giving training to them for a month or so. The respondent was one of the such youths, who was though educated yet unemployed. In order to take benefit of the said scheme, as was in force in the year 1993-94 , the respondent applied to the District Industries Centre at Ganganagar on 28.10.1993 to sanction a loan to him. A loan of Rs.75,000/- was sanctioned to him by the said Centre on 16.1.1994 and he was advised to approach the Punjab National Bank, Sriganganagar for disbursement of the loan according to rules. On 18.1.994 he received the sanction of the appellant Bank and he was required by the appellant to undergo a training for one month in the trade/business, he was willing to enter into. The respondent obtained such training and submitted the certificate of training to the Manager of the appellant Bank. Thereafter Shri M. M. Jain, Branch Manager of the appellant Bank at Sriganganagar required the respondent to file the quotations from the firms wherefrom he intended to purchase the machinery. The respondent submitted such quotations from certain firms at Ganganagar and Ludhiana (Punjab ). Thereafter Shri Jain, Manager required the appellant to hire a shop wherein he could establish his business. The respondent hired a shop at a rent of Rs.600/- per month and paid Rs.1,800/- as advance rent for 3 months. The said Yojana under which the loan had been sanctioned to the respondent provided that such unemployed youth was not required to furnish any guarantee to secure the debt. But Shri Jain, Manager (appellant No.1) required the respondent to furnish the details of his properties which could be pledged/mortgaged with the Bank to secure the debt. Such letter is stated to have been forwarded to him on 21.4.1994 through the Tehsildar. On the basis of such letter the respondent went to Patiala wherefrom he collected the documents of his immovable property and submitted such documents to secure the debt which was yet to be disbursed to him. Shri Jain Manager then required him to deposit a margin money of Rs.5,000/- which was also deposited by him. By his letter dated 29.6.1994 Shri Jain, Manager of the appellant at Ganganagar Branch told the respondent that two other persons were already carrying on business/trade wherein the respondent wanted to enter. Placing these facts before the D. F. , which get support from the documents filed by him, the respondent complained that Shri Jain did not disburse the sanctioned loan to him despite his doing all the acts as directed to be done by Shri Jain. He, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.1 lac and cost at Rs.1,300/-.

(2.) The case put forth by the appellants in their defence was that it was the duty of the Bank to see whether the prospective loanee was in a position to repay the amount of loan. It was in that direction that Shri Jain, Manager had behaved in the way, as narrated by the respondent.

(3.) The D. F. after hearing the parties held that once a loan had been sanctioned and the respondent had done all the acts which he was required to do and which acts included furnishing security for the repayment of the debt, not disbursing the sanctioned loan to him by the appellant amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The D. F. accordingly directed the appellant to sanction the loan to the respondent within a period of one month from the order of the Forum and also to pay a cost of Rs.200/- to him. The aggrieved appellants are now before is Commission.