STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. BINDESHWARI PRASAD MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. State Bank of India, Purnea Branch is the appellant which has preferred the appeal against the order dated 1.6.1999 passed in Complaint Case No.70/1993 by the District Forum, Purnea.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that appellant sanctioned a loan to the respondent first party (complainant) for purcahse of tractor, trailer and culti in March, 1991. The loan account was opened in the name of the complainant and tractor was supplied to them for which the loan was sanctioned. Respondent No.1 has filed quotation for trailer and culti of the tractor to the appellant and instructed the appellant to pay the price for the same out of loan account. As per instruction the appellant paid the money to M/s. Mithila Agro Industries. There was considerable delay on the part of respondent-second party in supply of the above articles in spite of receipt of the amount. Thereafter, the complainant informed the Bank and filed complaint. The respondent-2nd party thereafter supplied the culti after six months but did not supply the trailer. The contention of the complainant was that due to delayed supply of the trailer, etc. the complainant sustained loss in his income and profit and accordingly he claimed Rs.25,000 and Rs.4,000 on account of compensation sustained in income and profit.

(3.) Before the District Forum in spite of notice only O. P. No.1 (appellant) appeared and filed rejoinder. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not appear nor the rejoinder was filed on their behalf. After perusal of the impugned order it appears that there is no dipsute with regard to the facts of the case. There is delay in supply of the trailer and culti on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The complainant had purchased the tractor after taking loan from the appellant-Bank. The main contention of the Bank before the District Forum was that it has performed its duty and supplied the loan and has also informed other respondents to supply the necessary equipment with the tractor. It was the fault on the part of other respondents and not on respondent No.1 appellant. Therefore, any claim against respondent No.1 is not maintainable in law.