ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondent/opposite party.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that M/s. Punjab Gas Cylinders Ltd. situated at Village Malikpur, Ludhiana-Malerkotla Road, Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur in Punjab obtained an interest free loan from the Government of Punjab (Department of Industries) but one of the terms of the loan was to obtain a 100% security. The complainant who was then Managing Director of M/s. Punjab Gas Cylinders Ltd. along with two other persons, namely, Amarjit Singh Grewal another also named Amarjit Singh took an FDR of Rs. 3,04,000 from the Punjab National Bank/respondents 1 and 2 and this FDR was given as a guarantee in favour of Director of Industries, Punjab/3rd respondent. It appears that on account of delayed/non-payment of the loan amount, the 4th respondent invoked the guarantee, consequent to which the first and second respondents made payment of Rs. 13,20,600 to the 3rd and 4th respondents. It was the case of the complainant that he was no more Managing Director at the time the guarantee was invoked. The FDR obtained on account of deposit of personal funds could not have been paid by the Bank to the respondents 3 and 4 and secondly since the guarantee was only to the extent of Rs. 3,04,000 by way of FDR, the total account could not have been given by the first and second respondents to the State Industries Department i.e. respondents 3 and 4. It is in this circumstance a complaint was filed before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service and the State Commission after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length. There is no dispute that the loan given to the Company was 'interest free' and the complainant along with two others were guarantors to the loan. It was also not in dispute that as per terms of the 'loan-sanctioning-agreement' in case there was delay in making the payment of the interest free loan; it was to carry interest @ 16% p.a. It is in these circumstances that the respondents 3 and 4 raised a total demand of Rs. 13,20,600 invoking the guarantee with the Bank and in these circumstances if the Bank has given that money to respondents 3 and 4 as per terms of the guarantee, we do not see any deficiency in service on the part of respondents 1 and 2.