TELETRONICS Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a common order passed in C. D. F. Case No.726 of 95 by the Calcutta District Forum, Unit-II, Calcutta. The complainant in the aforesaid case made an allegation of deficiency in service against the opposite party State Bank of India, Bhavanipore Branch, for refusal of the Bank to give assistance as per the sanctioned loan. The complainant carries on manufacturing business and selling of high technology telecommunication materials and electronic components and for this purpose it is registered with the Directorate of Cottage and Small-Scale Industries, Government of West Bengal and National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. , Government of India. The complainant entered into an agreement with the Bank on 5.12.1980 for financial assistance under four categories, viz. Medium-Term loan of Rs.80,000/-, a Term Loan under the quality schemes of the Bank of Rs.40,000/-, a cash credit limit of Rs.80,000/- and a cash credit limit of Rs.40,000/- as also other related banking facilities. The complainant repaid the Medium-Term Loan of Rs.80,000/- to the Bank with payable interest. At present, the complainant is utilising cash credit limit of Rs.80,000/- and cash credit limit of Rs.40,000/-. He, however, never availed of Term-Loan of Rs.40,000/-.

(2.) The complainant received a purchase order in the middle of 1993 from the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, amounting to Rs.3,04,920/-. As the complainant was dependent on the Government of India and as he had entered into an agreement with the opposite party-Bank creating an embargo on the borrowing credit facilities of any description from any other Bank or any credit agency or institution, he approached the opposite party Bank for a paltry amount of Rs.15,000/-. Although the complainant had urged upon the Bank to make the sanction of the loan as early as possible, the Bank remained silent over the pro- posal and opened the dialogue in this regard only on 10.11.1993, vide their letter No. SIB : AK : 39 : 1604 dated 10.11.1993. In the meantime, the limiting date of supply of the materials by the Telecommunication Department, Government of India, expired on 10.9.1993. The complainant lost the order on account of this deliberate and negligent delay on the part of the Bank to take appropriate action. The Department of Telecommunication being the principal buyer of the products of the complainant, the prospects of selling its products to the said Department were doomed for ever and its name was inserted in the list of non-performance of contract. What is more, the Bank demanded back the outstanding loan amount on the allegation that it had neglected to deal with the Bank according to the contract. . It also made an allegation of exceeding the credit facilities on one occasion which has been explained by the complainant as being caused by the temporary stoppage of clearing cheques by Vizag Steel Plant. It has been further stated by the complainant that this transaction was regularised as soon as the budgetary constraint of the Vizag Steel Plant was lifted. The complainant has alleged that due to the irresponsible stoppage of banking facilities as agreed to between the Bank and the complainant, it had to suffer a huge loss including loss of goodwill and other business loss. Accordingly, it has claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,30,000/-.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing the parties has held that the stoppage of banking facilities by the Bank and not providing assistance as per sanctioned loan was deficiency in service and caused injury to the complainant. It had, accordingly, allowed a compensation of Rs.15,000/- only to the complainant. The present appeal has been filed against the said order and demanding enhancement of compensation.