As per the sanction letter, the Corporation was to provide only 75 per cent of the purchase price to the respondent and the remaining share, i.e., 25 per cent was to be companytributed by the respondent.
The first installment was to be due on the first day of 18th month reckoned from the date of first disbursement of loan against fixed assets.
was also submitted.
The plea of the respondent was dismissed by the District Consumer Commission on the principle that his application is number maintainable as the dispute in a loan agreement between the debtor and creditor does fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer forum.
Due to the repeated failure on part of the respondent to submit the details of the material purchased and companysumed, the appellant finally cancelled the unavailed loan, on 08.09.1992 and informed the same to respondent.
The respondent replied to the said companymunication stating that he had already initiated the proceedings before the State Consumer Commission, Jaipur on 15.07.1992.
The appellant Corporation was forced to dishonor the bills as the name indicated in them were number as per the requirement and new bills were asked to be submitted.
REVISION PETITION BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION The respondent being aggrieved by the decision of the State Consumer Commission preferred a Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The companyrect and accurate bills were to be submitted within one month from 31.05.1991.
Secondly, Nita Udyogic Vastu Bhandar Private Limited is number an authorized dealer for Wolf make machine or M s rally India Ltd. The appellant also informed that the machines were old as per the internal checkup done by the appellant Corporation.
However, the National Commission companycluded on this point that there was numberspecific obligation pointed out by the appellant Corporation which is said to be left unfulfilled by the respondent.
Firstly, as regards the number release of the balance amount of Rs.3,375/ as against the machinery and secondly, the number release of the balance amount of Rs.81,000/ from the sanctioned amount of Rs.1,26,000/ for working capital limit.
The respondent being aggrieved by the order of the District forum, preferred appeal before the State Consumer Commission.
The District Consumer Forum dismissed the companyplaint along with companyts vide order date 31.01.2004 stating that there was numberdeficiency in service as the bills presented by the respondent were of a firm which was number existent.
The respondent submitted bills from the authorized dealer of Wolf portable machine, i.e., Heerex Corporation amounting to Rs.19,797.75/ against which a sum of Rs.2000/ , as advance was paid to the respondent.
The respondent was, therefore, asked to submit a receipt for Rs.3172.75 denoting his companytribution of 25 per cent, in order to avail the sum of Rs.14,625/ .
An additional request was also made as regards the receipts showing the respondents share of Rs.3172.75/ .
As regards the first point, the National Commission companysidered the companytention of the appellant Corporation whereby it was stated that the amount of Rs.3,375/ was number released as the respondent did number companyply with the terms spelled out in the letter of sanction.
The period of repayment of the loan was eight years in quarterly installments.
prior to the date of sanction of the loan and its disbursement.
The appellant Corporation addressed two separate letters dated 26.12.1991 and 02.11.1992 asking the respondent to submit the details of the companysumption of quantity of raw materials and the stock position update along with sales made.
Another companyrespondence was addressed to the respondent requesting him to fulfill all other terms and companyditions of the loan agreement, including a companydition to create assets in the ratio of 11.10 as stipulated in Clause 5 of the Special Terms and Conditions annexed with the loan agreement.
Another bill of Rs.17,800/ dated 29.12.1989 which represented saw machines with two HP motors with accessories etc.
Thereafter, the review petition filed by the respondent was also rejected by the State Commission vide order dated 09.09.2004.
In spite of such a request the respondent never submitted the receipt.
The District forum dismissed the companyplaint on 02.12.1995 holding that the respondent was unable to show the details of the purchased goods from authorized dealer and that M s Nita Udyog Vastu Bhadar Private Limited is their own companycern which was closed much before the issuance of the bill, thus failing to show that he was entitled to the sum of Rs.3,375/ .
Thus the appellant Corporation asked the respondent to submit companyrect bills.
This fact was reiterated by the State Commission in its order dated 02.09.2004.
Further as per the terms of the sanction letter one of the important terms was that the machinery should be purchased from authorized dealer and of Wolf make or from M s Rally India Ltd. On 29.06.1990, the respondent requested the appellant Corporation for more time to companyplete the formalities of submitting the loan documents in order to enable the appellant to disburse the loan amount.
The appellant Corporation sent a cheque of Rs.14,625/ favouring the authorized dealer Heerex Corporation, to Fauji Kutir Udyog along with a request to send the receipt to the Corporation for the amount so paid.
Further, the appeal was entertained by the State Commission as the respondent sought to file certain documents.
The National Commission companysidered revision on two companynts.
The District Consumer Forum has observed in the order dated 31.01.2004 that the Nita Udyogic Vastu Bhandar P Ltd from whom the respondent claim to have purchased the machinery and the bills so produced dated 29.12.1989 are clearly fraudulent as this companycern stood closed since March 1989.
As regards the second point, the National Commission cited a para from the letter dated May 04, 1991 addressed by the appellant Corporation to the respondent whereby it is pointed out that the bills submitted were number the companyrect one as they were issued in name of firm Kailash Udyog and the respondent had fraudulently replaced there name in the bills.
The State Commission allowed the appeal vide order dated 12.12.1994 and remanded the matter back to the District Forum.
Later, on 04.05.1991 the respondent submitted a bill of Nita Udyogic Vastu Bhandar Private Limited dated 21.08.1989 for a sum of Rs.10,200/ representing the purchase price of drill machine etc.,
The respondent thereafter made a representation whereby he claimed that the Corporation was under liability to pay a sum of Rs.3,375/ as the balance amount of sanctioned loan by companysidering his earlier bill of Nita Udyog Vastu Bhandar Private Limited which was rejected by the appellant stating it to be untenable as the Nita Udyog Vastu Bhandar was number an authorized dealer.
Thereafter on 26.07.1990, the respondent again submitted the bills in the name of Kailash Udhyog and number in the name of his own business, i.e., Fauji Kutir Udhyog.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CONSUMER FORUM The respondent moved the District Consumer Commission with a companyplaint of deficiency of service and also prayed for the disbursement of Rs.3,375/ .
The matter was remanded back to the District Forum vide order dated 21.03.2003.
The sanction letter also provided that if the companycern has purchased machinery in accordance with the scheme and full payment has been made, 90 per cent of the admissible amount of loan will be released on the basis of the statement of account prescribed for the purpose, duly supported by bills and receipts and balance after valuation of machines.
The State Commission refused to entertain the appeal vide order date 02.09.2004.
Due to repeated submission of wrong bills by the respondent, the appellant addressed a letter to the respondent stating that the bills were unacceptable for two reasons, firstly, Nita Udyogic Vastu Bhandar Private Limited is a family companycern and the respondent is in gainful employment in the companycern.
The respondent was given another chance as the appellant informed the respondent that though the loan agreement was time barred, his case companyld be companysidered favourably only if he submits the bills from authorized dealer or manufacturer.
Leave granted.
L. DATTU, J. The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Rederessal Commission, New Delhi for short National Commission wherein and whereunder it has directed the appellant to pay companypensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/ along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of filing of petition in favour of the respondent.
