ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. (Member)
1. This is a complaint wherein the Complainant is seeking the
following reliefs:
(a) Direct the Respondent Bank to disburse the loan of
Rs. 2.5 Crores being the escalated cost of the project; or
(b) Direct the Respondent Bank to pay compensation to the
tune of Rs. 21,42,000/- due to accumulated capital
losses incurred on account of unconscionable and
unexplained delay which amounts to deficiency of
service;
(c) Award pecuniary damages actually suffered by the
Complainant by reason of the failure, negligence and
omission to sanction and disburse the loan and interest
on the same; and
(d) Pass any other order or orders as may be deemed just
and proper to meet the ends of justice.
2. It is alleged by the Complaint that they had set up a
hatchery and wanted a working capital facilities and financial assistance
from, inter alia, the Respondent, State Bank of India. It is alleged that State
Bank kept exchanging correspondence and never disbursed the loan
which it had sanctioned. On a query it was pointed out that the sanction
letter is Annexure-I to the reply version of the State Bank. In the cours(sic)
the arguments, it was pointed out to us by the Counsel for the SBI th(sic)
decision was taken to sanction the loan and for the reason they had se(sic)
letter dated 10th January, 1992. On further query, it was clarified tha(sic)
said letter remained un-acknowledged and unsigned by the Complainant.
This letter contained various conditions on which the loan was to be given.
The last paragraph of the letter reads as under:
“Please acknowledge on the duplicate copy of this letter(sic)
token of your acceptance to the terms and conditions as
detailed above”.
Not only this copy was never signed admittedly by the Complainant, but
the conditions contained therein for the grant of the loan also remained
unfulfilled. We need not go into further details in this case but, to note that
in various decisions, this Commission has taken a consistent view that
refusal to rehabilitate or failure to provide credit or refusal to finance have
been consistently held to be not amounting to deficiency in service. A
reference may be made to the following decisions of this Commission:
(i) Ashok Prabhakar v. State Bank of India : I(1993) CPJ 11
(NC)
(ii) Arora Industrial Corporation v. UBI : (\I(1992) CPJ 115
(NC).
(iii) Jagannath Meher v. SBI II (1993) CPJ 147 (NC).
(iv) Ramkripal v. UI : I (1991) CPJ 23 (NC).
3. It is for the financial institutions really to decide whether to or
not to enhance the facilities or even to sanction the loan. There will also
be no deficiency of service if the loan is sanctioned by the Bank subject to
certain conditions which remain unfulfilled on account whereof loan is not
disbursed. However, in the present case, we find that according to the
Counsel, even the sanction letter was not delivered to the Complainant (as
asserted by the Counsel for the complainant at the time of hearing). In that
view of the matter, this sanction remains in the file of the Bank only and
before proceeding any further, the Bank took a conscious decision to not to
go ahead with grant of this loan. A situation like this, we are afraid, cannot
be described as deficiency in service. In these circumstances, since there
is no deficiency in service, this complaint cannot be entertained and is
dismissed. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.