ROBINSON INDIA Vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Complaint is from M/s. Robinson India Sri Ganganagar, through its proprietor. The Complainant applied to the Rajasthan Finance Corporation (R.F.C. for short)-Opposite Part No. 1 for a loan for the manufacture of med cines and was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 7 lakh The Complainant also obtained sanction for Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 3 lakhs from the Punjab National Bank, Sri Ganganagar (P.N.B. for short (Opposite Party No. 2). The grievance of Complainant is that the R.F.C. disbursed to him only Rs. 6.08 lakhs and that the balance amount was not disbursed inspite of several requests and that because of non-payment of the loan to the full extent, the Complainant could not start his factory in a proper way. He also contended that the O.P. No. l took over the possession

(2.) HIS factory in his absence on 18.11.92 when it was in running position whereas according to him, O.P. No. 1 was not entitled to do so until the full amount of the loan was paid. He further complained that O.P. No. 2, without jurisdiction or right took over the possession of the ram materials from O.P. No. 1 and that while Of No. 1 handed over the possession of the factory back to the Complainant on 14.5.93, the possession of raw materials was still with Oil No. 2. The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Parties acted in collusion with each other with a view to cause him undue loss. The Complainant has claimed a relief of (i) Rs. 40.35 lakhs towards the financial and physical loss allegedly caused by the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 due to carelessness, (ii) Rs. 10,000/-per day from the date of taking over possession of raw materials till the return of the same with a direction to return the materials to him, (iii) Rs. 5,500/- as lawyers fee and (iv) Rs. 500/- towards travel costs for his trips to Delhi from Sri Ganganagar on each day of hearing.

(3.) THE PNB Opposite Party No. 2 have filed in their reply a copy of the Cash Credit Account of the Complainant to show that the operation of said account was unsatisfactory and that at the end of November, 1992, an amount of Rs, 3,11,327.30 was outstanding against the sanctioned limit of Rs. 3 lakhs although he had given an undertaking to deposit the proceeds of daily sale of his stock-in-trade on the next working day towards part payment of the interest and principal due. O.P. No. 2 also mentioned that the letters of RFC to the complainant on the take over were endorsed to PNB and since the hypothecation of raw materials and finished goods was with the PNB, the RFC informed the PNB to take possession of the hypothecated goods. The PNB did so on 17.12.92 in the presence of Notary Public and certain other witnesses. Although the Complainant has settled the matter with RFC and taken possession of his factory, he has not contacted the PNB to sort out the matter regarding goods inspite of repeated references from PNB advising him to deposite the outstanding in his Cash Credit Account and take back the raw materials in their custody.