Mr. Justice B.N. Sinha, President—This Case and Case No. 79 of 92 have been filed by one and the same person and they arise out of the same cause. Therefore with the consent of the parties they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The complainant has filed these two cases alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter called the B.S.F.C.)-the Opposite Party in Case No. 78 of 92 and the State Bank of India (hereinafter called SBI) and its Regional Manager at Muzaffarpurthe Opposite Party in Case No. 79/92 for not proving adequate and timely working capital and subsequently in not providing rehabilitation finance when the complainant’s unit became uneconomic and sick for lack of adequate and timely working capital.

2. The complainant happens to be the proprietor of Green Foundary, Industrial Estate, Siwan a registered S.S.I. Unit which was planned and constructed by the complainant during 1979/ 81. The case of the complainant may be briefly stated. The B.S.F.C.-Opposite Party in Case No. 78 of 92 sanctioned a term loan to the complainant on 25.4.79 for Rs. 3.22 lacs. But the BSFC took more than two years to disburse only Rs. 2,56,800/- and refused to disburse the balance amount of Rs. 65,200/- Since during this period the prices of the materials and machines had gone up considerably, the complainant could not complete the Unit and applied for another loan of Rs. 3.95 lacs on 30.8.80 and the BSFC sanctioned only Rs. 55,000/-. But the BSFC adjusted that amount against the interest on the loan. Hence the unit remained incomplete. On 21st December, 1981 the complainant applied for another loan of Rs. 1.77 lacs to complete his project. But on 19.3.82 the BSFC sanctioned only Rs. 0.85 lacs against that and the complainant has to console himself with his half complete unit and started production. But due to want of adequate working capital the Unit was forced to run much below it “Break-even Point.”

3. On 15.11.80 the State Bank of India (the S.B.I.), Siwan Branch had sanctioned a working capital loan of only Rs. 56,000/- to the complainant’s unit, but allowed its Operation from 3.4.81. Inspite of the fact that the requirement of working capital for the unit was Rs. six lacs, the State Bank of India sanctioned a working capital limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- and consequently the unit continued to incur loss. The complainant was allowed to use this limit of working capital from February, 82 by the S.B.I. Due to tornado on 15.5.83 the unit was badly damaged and sustained a total loss of Rs. 2.32 lacs. On 31.5.83 the complainant applied to BSFC for loan of Rs. 2.57 lacs to meet the cost of repairs. But the B.S.F.C. refused to even look into the application of the complainant without their palms being greased. On 28.1.86 the B.S.F.C. sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 3.33 lacs which they disbursed on 20.2.86, out of which they deducted Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the interest etc. accrued in the preceding three years and paid only Rs. 1.33 lacs to the complainant.

4. On 17.7.85 the complainant applied to the State Bank of India for rehabilitation of the Unit under the RBI/SIDBI/RSR Scheme and a revised project report was submitted to the S.B.I, showing the working capital requirement of the Unit on the basis of 1985 prices as Rs. 10.42 lacs, out of which the SBI was to sanction a working capital limit of Rs. 7.30 lacs and the BSFC was to provide Rs. 3.12 lacs as Margin Money. The SBI Officer sat on the application of the complainant for four long years. Consequently the Unit remained practically closed and continued to incur loss. But the SBI continued to charge interest on its old dues. On 2.9.89 the SBI sanctioned working capital limit of Rs. 4.15 lacs against the Unit requirement of Rs 7.30 lacs though at 1989 prices this requirement was at least Rs. 15 lacs. But the SBI put a condition in the sanction letter that this sanction shall be implemented only after the B.