- (1.) THE complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1. The complainant filed this complaint claiming some reliefs and compensation for mental agony caused to complainant with costs. 2. The brief fact of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a proprietary concern represented by Proprietarix Mrs.K.Ramani, registered as a small and medium industries in the field of embroidery and button stitching for exports garments. The complainant for the purpose of purchase of computerized embroidery machine and khaja stitching machine applied for a loan of Rs.24,00,000/ - on 14.8.2009 and on the basis of total invoice amount of Rs.30,08,000/ - after due processing and scrutiny the opposite party sanctioned a loan of Rs.22,50,000/ - repayable with interest at 12.5% p.a. in 60 EMI's of Rs.37,500/ - each starting from January, 2010. For the same the complainant deposited all the original title deeds of the complainant's daughter as equitable mortgage by way of memorandum of deposit dated 24.9.2009. For the purpose of loan sanctioned all the necessary documents were furnished. When the complainant approached AGM for release of the amounts under the sanctioned loan they have evaded the same for no fault of the complainant. Hence, the complainant after issued legal notice dated 7.12.2009 a reply dated 9.12.2010 was issued by the opposite party by alleging that the documents for the purchase of machine and reference for employment orders etc are all exaggerated, fabricated and on the basis of the same the loan account was not released. Further the equitable mortgage executed by the complainant's daughter alleged to be a minor on the basis of ration card issued for the year 2005 -2009. Till the date of complaint the registered mortgage date has not been cancelled. The contact of the opposite party in not releasing the loan amount after sanctioned the amount to arbitrary action against the principles of natural justice. Thereby the complainant met with business loss around Rs.1.25 lakhs per month and suffered mental agony and thereby claiming to release the loan amount sanctioned for Rs.22,50,000/ - with 12% interest, Rs.5,00,000/ - towards loss of income with 12% interest, to Rs.1,25,000/ - towards future loss and Rs.1,00,000/ - towards mental agony with 12% and to Rs.25,000/ - as costs.
(2.) THE opposite party denying the allegations of the complainant except to admit the sanction of loan of Rs.22,50,000/ - and contended that the loan was not released on the basis of investigation and verification reports regarding the voucher submitted by the complainant for purchase of machines and the particulars relating to the prospectus submitted by the complainant on the basis of arbitrator. On verification the cost of embroidery machine and button stitching machine was mentioned for Rs.30,08,000/ - and on verification from the very same dealer and for motor manufacturer etc which is found that the cost of Embroidery machine was around Rs.6,00,000/ - in Indian money and the Abirami Garments from whom the complainant produced the letter to show expected work orders was a Training Institute teaching tailoring and was not dealing in any embroidery works and the experience certificate issued to the employee created doubt about the genuiness and discrepancies and hence the loan was not released and the reply was given on 9.2.2010 stating the reasons for not releasing the loan and further the nature of business being the commercial business and the complainant cannot be a consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also the equitable mortgage was cancelled since the loan was not released. This opposite party is absolutely within its rights to withhold disbursement of any loan at any stage on coming to know the facts affecting the viability of the project for which such loan sanctioned. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is to be dismissed.
(3.) IN the enquiry both sides have filed their proof affidavit and on the side of the complainant Ex.A1 to A21 were marked and on the side of the opposite party Ex.B1 to B9 were marked. The points for consideration are : 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not disbursing the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.22,50,000/ - as alleged ? 3. If so, to what relief?;