VISWALAKSHMI SASIDHARAN Vs. BRANCH MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants Mrs. Viswalakshmi Sasidharan & Ors. have appealed against the order dated 27.3.1993 in Complaint No. 65/90 of the State Commission, Karnataka. The case of the Complainants before the State Commission was that the Opposite Party namely the Syndicate Bank, Camp. Branch, Belgaum did not disburse the full amount of the two loans sanctioned for them in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- under OSL-5/82 and Rs. 3,00,000/-under OSL-7/1982 which act, according to them, constituted a deficiency in service resulting in losses to them. These loans were required for procuring moulds, tools and raw material as well as for the payment of labour charges. While the Appellants availed themselves of the full amount of the loan under OS-5 /82 and a sum of Rs. 1,47,000/- under OSL-7/82, the Syndicate Bank did not disburse the balance amount to the full extent of the sanctioned limit under OSL-7/ 82. As a consequence, the Appellants have contended, they could not pay the labour charges to B.E.M.L., and therefore, could not manufacture the products ordered by B.E.M.L. resulting in heavy losses in the process. On the basis of these averments the Appellants herein sought damages to the extent of Rs. 9,50,000/- before the State Commission.

(2.) THE Opposite Party namely the Syndicate Bank in their pleadings before the State Commission contended that as the Appellants did not adhere .to the terms and conditions of the loan and violated them, the further disbursements were stopped after the two limits sanctioned to them were merged in one limit in OSL-2/86 by extinguishing OSL-5/82 and OSL-7/82. The Bank also stated before the State Commission that they have filed a suit in OS-148 /1990 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum for the recovery of the amount already due from the Appellant and the said suit is pending.

(3.) THE State Commission came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the submission of the Complainants that the services rendered by the Bank were in any way deficient in nature due to non-release of further funds in OSL-7/82 by taking support of the ruling of this Commission in Excess Farms (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Anr. reported in 1(1992) CPJ 111 where this Commission had held :