H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA First Appeal No.: 148/2023 Date of Presentation: 07.07.2023 Order Reserved on: 24.10.2024 Date of Order: 29.10.2024 _____

1. State Bank of India, Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan (H.P.) through its Manager.

2. State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Shimla through its Regional Manager.

3. Sh. Naveen Kumar, Manager, State Bank of India, Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan (H.P.).

…… Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

1. Smt. Anita wife of Sh. Tej Ram resident of Hari Om Niwas, Village and P.O. Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan (H.P.).

2. Sh. Chunni Lal Bansal son of Sh. Nazroo Ram, resident of Hari Om Niwas, village and P.O. Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan (H.P.).

..…Respondents/complainants.

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Appellants: Ms.Dimple Mehta, Advocate vice Mr.Arvind Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ravi Shankar Sood, Advocate.

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President

O R D E R

Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated

10.05.2023 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Solan, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No.152/2019 titled Smt.Anita & Anr. Versus State Bank of India & Ors.

Brief facts of Case

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant No.2 is running a Readymade Garment Shop at Darlaghat for the last about 20 years for which he had availed a loan from the opposite party No.2/State Bank of India. The complainants were desirous to open a new business of manufacturing of readymade garments at Darlaghat for which they were in need of financial assistance of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The opposite party No.3/ Manager, State bank of India told the complainant No.1 to get her loan under PMEGP scheme approved from concerned authority and assured to sanction and advance the loan under sponsored PMEGP scheme of the Central Government in the name of complainant No.1. On the assurance of the opposite party No.3/ Manager, State bank of India, the complainants applied for loan to the Khadi Board in the name of complainant No.1, which was approved by the District Level Task Force Committee in its meeting held on 25.08.2018 under PMEGP scheme of the Government of India vide letter dated 26.08.2018 and after getting the same approved from Khadi Board, the complainants submitted all documents with the opposite party No.3/ Manager, State bank of India for sanctioning loan. However, the opposite party No. 3 rejected the loan case in PMEGP proposal of the complainants on account of the reason that the complainant No.1 has not done EDP training vide letter dated 29.11.2018. Accordingly the complainant No.1 joined the EDP training at Solan and remained under training from 16.01.2019 to 25.01.2019. After completing the said training the complainant No.1 on 28.01.2019 submitted the certificate of training to the opposite party No.3/ Manager, State bank of India with the request to release loan amount, but to no avail. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties/Bank.

3. The opposite parties No.1 & 2/State Bank of India contested the complaint of the complainant by filing reply and stated that the complainants themselves are at fault, who failed to complete and fulfill the requisite formalities to avail loan under sponsored PMEGP scheme of the Central Government. The opposite party No.1 and 3 had written so many letters to the complainants to complete and fulfill all requisite formalities to avail loan under sponsored PMEGP scheme of the Central Government as applied by them. The loan case applied by the complainant No.1 under sponsored PMEGP scheme of the Central Government is still pending for sanctioning on account of her failure to fulfill the requisite formalities. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made on behalf of the opposite parties.

4. The complainant has filed rejoinder denyin