Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President—This is a consumer dispute made by M/s Kaniskha Investment Private Limited an Agro-based Project engaged in the poultry farming. In this complaint the negligence is alleged in the service of opposite party viz. Sangli Bank Limited as banker and financier.

2. The complainant alleged that they possess the extensive land in a backward district viz. Raigad. With a view to develop a broiler poultry farm, the complainant approached the Sangli Bank Limited for grant of financial assistance for the development of broiler poultry farm. After scrutinizing complainant’s proposal from all angles vide resolution dated 13.10.1989, the Board of Directors of Sangli Bank Ltd. approved the proposal and sanctioned the term loan for the sum of Rs. 26,32,000/-. By the aforesaid resolution dated 13.10.1989 the bank fixed interest for the term loan @ 12.5% p.a. The period for the repayment of loan was fixed for seven years with initial grace period of one year. The loan was repayable in six annual/equated instalments. The first instalment of loan was commenced from January, 1992. The Agro-based project was expected to start from January, 1990. It was stipulated in the aforesaid letter dated 13.10.1989 that the proposal was governed by all standard terms and conditions of poultry farm advance and crop loan which will be stipulated by National Bank for Agricultural & Rural Development (hereinafter referred as “NABARD”). The said proposal was sent by Sangli Bank to NABARD in January, 1990 which was approved on 10.12.1991. Accordingly, NABARD gave sanction to the establishment of complainant’s broiler poultry farm unit of 46.86 lacs and the financial assistance was approved by the leading bank for an amount of Rs. 37.95 lacs.

3. Accordingly, the Sangli Bank further sanctioned to complainant Rs. 4.30 lacs and Rs. 4.95 lacs cash credit for poultry feed, milk unit and machinery. As the original bank resolution stipulating the NABARD conditions, the loan was agreed to be re-financed by the NABARD. The lending rate in interest to be paid by complainant was fixed by the NABARD at 11.5% p.a. and re-payment period was fixed for five years with annual equated instalments. The NABARD’s resolution is placed on record. According to complainant, the first deficiency in the service of the bank is that despite the agreed rate of interest @ 11.5% p.a. as simple interest for agricultural loan, the bank charged interest ranging from 14% to 23.25% p.a. to complainant. It is also alleged that the rate of interest was calculated with compound interest with quarterly rests which is contrary to the directions of the R.B.I. and the NABARD for agricultural loan.

4. According to complainant, the second deficiency in the service of opposite party is that Sangli Bank did not release the sanctioned loan to complainant when required and demanded back the loan as a result of which complainant suffered in the establishment of his poultry farm and was required to pay for the over-head charges. It is also allowed that due to insufficient cash flow from the Sangli Bank, the poultry feed could not be purchased as a result of which about 26,000 birds were perished. The complainant therefore alleged that apart from the loss suffered by complainant the Sangli Bank stopped further finance to complainant’s unit and proceeded further for recovery of loan with compound interest from complainant even before the expiry of the period permissible for the re-payment of the loan. On the basis of this fact the complainant alleged that the services of the Sangli Bank were seriously deficient due to negligence as a result of which his poultry unit was rendered uneconomical. The complainant therefore claimed that the Sangli Bank shall be directed not to recover interest than the stipulated amount on the term loan and complainant be released Rs. 8,11,000/- from term loan account as per the conditions of the NABARD. The complainant further alleged that, according to the c