URMILA BHARGAVA Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Bank, for not providing adequate and timely working capital and subsequently in not providing rehabilitation finance when the complainants unit became uneconomic land sick because of the antecedent failure to provide adequate working capital. The complainant has, therefore, alleged to have suffered heavy losses due to opposite party's negligence, malafide and illegal actions and claimed Rs. 56.76 lakhs as compensation for the losses suffered by the complainant and Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation for the mental harassment and agony and have also prayed that the opposite party be directed to waive off interest on the sanctioned loans and that the opposite party should pay interest on the loan from U.P. Finance Corpora-

(2.) THE complainant had set up a unit for refining of used lubricating oil in March, 1977. She took a term loan of Rs. 2.99 lakhs from the U.F. State Finance Corporation and received Rs. 1 lakh as working capital from the opposite party Bank (though the complainant states that her working capital requirement was assessed at Rs. 2.5 lakhs in 1977 on the advice of the bank, she had accepted Rs. 1 lakh only). The application dated 9th November, 1977 for working capital loan is for Rs. 1 lakh only. (Pages 60 to 63 of the paper book). It appears to have been sanctioned on 9th November, 1977.

(3.) IT is further alleged that the respondent bank, without the knowledge and consent of the complainant, blocked Rs. 50,000 for working capital in the form of fixed deposit receipts. In the result even this money was not available to the complainant for purchasing stocks, etc. In November, 1981, the opposite party bank agreed to release Rs. 65,000 against which the bank deducted Rs. 35,000 due to it from the complainant and imposed a 10 per cent cut on the cash credit limit.