Decided on August 26,2010

Devender Kaur W/O Dharmender Singh Appellant
Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chhatroli Respondents


- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 28/2005, dated 19.9.2008, whereby the complaint of the appellant was dismissed since it was concluded that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent.
(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerged from the complaint are that the appellant had applied for obtaining loan, for installing an industry, by her to the respondent and loan case for the said purpose has been approved by the District Industries Corporation. It is pertinent to mention that the required loan was Rs. 15,93,500/ - as per the project report submitted for the said loan and official of the respondent agreed to advance loan subject to furnishing of guarantee papers to the tune of Rs. Forty lacs and in compliance thereto, she deposited guarantee papers to the tune of Rs. Forty Lacs with the bank.
(3.) FURTHER averments of the appellant was that after depositing the guarantee papers, the bank had refused to advance loan to the tune of Rs. 15,93,500/ - and told that the bank can advance loan upto Rs. Ten lacs. Thereafter the appellant had prepared fresh documents and as per directions of the respondent she had also made registered mortgage in favour of the bank by spending Rs. 50,000/ -. Despite of completion of all the codal formalities by her as per instructions of the respondent, the bank had refused to advance loan to her on one pretext or the other. Thereafter the appellant had served notice dated 2.12.2002 upon the respondent and thereafter on 10.12.2002, the first instalment of the loan was released to her. It was further pleaded that from the date of advancement of first instalment to the loanee, margin money claim was to be sent within three months by the respondent bank to Khadi Vikas Industrial Corporation, but the then official of the respondent deliberately sent the case after three months alongwith some old forms and due to the said reason her case of subsidy was not passed in her favour. Thereafter she wrote a letter to the respondent and then her case was again forwarded. Further averments in the case are that interest on the subsidy amount of Rs. 2,98,500/ - was charged by the respondent from the appellant for the said period and despite giving assurance to her by the respondent her cash credit limit were not raised and in the month of July, 2003 her cash credit limit was withdrawn suo -motto by the respondent and the same was adjusted towards the term loan without her consent.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.