Back
2012(2) CPR 180 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.C. Jain, Presiding Member and S.K. Naik, Member
Aquadev India Ltd. —Complainant
versus
State Bank of Hyderabad and Ors. —Opposite Parties
Original Petition No. 154 of 1996
Decided on 29.2.2012
For the Complainant:Mr. D. Krishnan and B.P. Padhy, Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties:R.P. Vats, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 5:Ms. Puja Dewan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.6:Mr. Balraj Dewan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The borrowers without strictly complying the terms and conditions, subject to which the loan is sanctioned, cannot expect the Bank to disburse the loan.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)g—Banking—Deficiency in service—Complainant’s case that non—disbursement of sanctioned of loan amount by opposite parties Bank constituted deficiency in service on part of opposite parties—Complainant company failed to comply several terms and conditions of sanction including the primary condition—Hence held that Opposite Party not committed any act of deficiency— Opposite parties by means of cogent evidence and material brought on record established the existence of grounds which compelled them to withdraw the sanction—By doing so, opposite parties could not be said to have done anything wrong which could amount to deficiency in service on part of O.P./Banks—Decision taken by Opposite Party/Banks was for justifiable reasons and not tainted with any malice or based on extraneous reasons—Complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service on part of O.P./Banks, by withdrawing from the proposed consortium and not disbursing the amount of sanctioned loan –Complaint dismissed. (Paras 40 & 41)
R.C. Jain, Presiding Member— This complaint was earlier decided by this Commission (by a Three-Members Bench presided by the then President) vide an order dated 2.9.04. The operative part of the said order reads as under:
“Hence, even though we have arrived at the conclusion that the banks were entitled to repudiate the contract for justifiable reasons, the delay in taking such decision and in the meantime asking the Complainant to proceed ahead with the project has caused heavy loss to the Complainant. The loss claimed by the Complainant is for implementing the project, for commencing the civil works, for recruitment of Senior Officers, for placement of orders for machinery and components, for release of advances to various contractors, besides spending large amount for obtaining Government clearances and the amount incurred for public issue. On this account, the Complainant has claimed large amount of Rs.8.5 crores, which we are not inclined to grant in view of various facts stated above. It is also quite possible that public at large might not have subscribed for the shares if it was not stated that the State Bank of Hyderabad was the lead bank and the State Bank of Travancore and the Bank of Maharashtra were Co-Managers to the public issue. Hence, even though this is not a fit case for grant of Compensatory compensation/ damages, but grant of nominal compensation is fully justified for the deficiency in service arising out of repeatedly obtaining appraisal reports/verifications and giving assurances, and thereafter not disbursing the funds. Hence we direct the State Bank of Hyderabad which has accepted to be the lead Bank as mentioned in the prospectus by the complainant to pay Rs.10 lakh as nominal compensation and also refund the amount of Rs.6 lakh which was charged as fees for appraisal report, because the appraisal report was in favour of the Complainant. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 i.e. the State Bank of India and the Dena Bank are directed to pay Rs.2 lakh and the Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 are directed to pay Rs.1 lakh each to the Complainant towards nominal compensation.
It would be for the Banks to recover the aforesaid amounts from the concerned officers who have committed faults or who were deficient in discharge of their duties, for known or unknown reasons.
The original petition is disposed of in the above terms. The State Bank of Hyderabad is directed to pay Rs.10,000 by way of costs to the Complainant.”
2. Aggrieved by the said order passed by this Commission, both sides filed Civil Appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appeal filed by the Complainant M/s Aquadev India Limited was registered as Civil Appeal No. 1739 of 2005 while the appeal filed by the opposite party-State Bank of Hyderabad and others was registered as Civil Appeal No.1750 of 2005. Both these appeals were heard and decided by the Supreme Court vide an order dated 9.3.2010 and the Supreme Court accepted both the appeals and set aside the order of this Commission dated 2.9.2004 (supra) and subsequent order dated 19.11.2004 passed on the Review Petition and remitted the matter to this Commission to decide the complaint afresh in accordance with law, after hearing both sides by observing as under:
“These Appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 2nd September, 2004 and subsequent order dated 19th November, 2004 passed in the review petition.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The facts have been set out in detail in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here. Lengthy arguments have been advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides but in our opinion, it is not necessary for us to deal with the same here because we are of the opinion that the National Commission has not given proper reasons in its judgment and has not properly appreciated the facts of the case.
Hence, we accept these appeals, set asid
