VISHNU AGENCIES Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Complainant is a Pharmaceutical trader, representing nearly 25 Pharmaceutical manufacturers, who are purchasing the products of the manufacturers and stocking them in godowns and further distributing them to the various dealers on credit for a period not less than 45 days.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Complainant, at its request, the Opposite Party, Indian Overseas Bank, agreed to sanction overdraft of Rupees one crore against collateral security by deposit of title deeds of the properties worth more than Rs. 2 crores and fixed deposits being made with the Opposite Party Bank. According to the Complainant he arranged for fixed deposits being made by various parties with the said Bank to the extent of Rs. 5 crores and furnished collateral security of properties worth more than Rs. 2 crores. However, the Opposite Party Bank allowed the Complainant an overdraft of Rs. 43 lacs only of which Rs. 18 lacs was appropriated by the Opposite Party Bank for payment of commission to various agents for arranging fixed deposits to the tune of Rs. 5 crores. In the result, he was, in effect, given overdraft to the extent of Rs. 25 lacs only against his requirement of Rupees one crore which had been again agreed to be granted by the Opposite Party Bank. In the result, the Complainant suffered severe shortage of funds in conducting his business. The Opposite Party Bank had committed deficiency in service by not allowing credit agreed to, viz. Rupees one crore. He has further alleged that the Opposite Party caused damage to his reputation and business by making a criminal complaint against him with the CBI and this was subsequently found to be baseless. The Complainant had therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs. 57 lacs in not allowing the Complainant to utilise the full amount sanctioned to him and thus causing loss of business and earnings, Rs. 3 crores for causing damage to the image and reputation of the Complainant by making a false criminal complaint against him with the CBI etc. and Rs. 50,000 for legal expenses incurred by him for valuation reports etc. for the title deeds deposited by him.

(3.) IT is not necessary for us to go into the matter further. The fact that the Opposite Party Bank filed a criminal complaint with CBI against the Complainant but eventually it was not proceeded with by the CBI is not a matter of service to be rendered by the Opposite Party Bank attracting the mischief of the Consumer Protection Act.