At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA
By, PRESIDENT; B.K. TAIMNI
By, J.K. MEHRA
For the Complainant: Shshir Pinaki, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: M. Jayashree, Advocate.
Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, President
The complaint is by M/s. Hanuman Hosiery, a partnership firm for recovery of Rs. 47,56,340/- on account of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Canara Bank for not releasing the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- out of Rs. 2.00 lakhs which was promised to be given to the complainant.
2. It is not disputed that a loan of Rs. 75,000/- was sanctioned by the Canara Bank. It is, however, the case of the Canara Bank that it never sanctioned loan of Rs. 2.00 lakhs or that it refused to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- to the complainant out of the alleged sanctioned loan. Canara Bank had stated that when Rs. 75,000/- were sanctioned there was no assurance whatsoever given by it for further sanction of loan. As a matter of fact, complainant had not furnished any document in support of its version. Rather Bank had stated that the complainant did not submit details of estimates, requirement of working capital, proof of present over dues with Bihar State Financial Corporation, sources of raw materials and arrangement for sale of finished goods, sources of margin, stock statement, etc. Therefore, there was no question of sanctioning of any further loan. As to how the amount of over Rs. 47.50 lakhs is claimed by the complainant towards compensation following particulars were given in the complaint which we reproduce:
3. From these very figures it is apparent that such a claim is an abuse of the process of Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. We would, therefore, dism
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
iss the complaint as not maintainable. However, this order of dismissal will not come in the way of complainant if it wants to seek its remedy before any other appropriate Forum.