JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President:---This is a complaint filed by the complainant alleging the deficiency in the service of the opposite party viz. Bank of India. Shortly stated the facts giving rise to the consumer dispute are that the complainant was granted loan facilities under "Educated Unemployed Scheme" for setting up elctronic SSI unit for manufacturing radios, tapereorders and other consumer electronic items in the year 1981 by the opposite party. The unit functioned well for three years from 1987 to 1990 with good turnover. But since the year 1990 onwards, the request made by the complainant to the opposite party for finance were turned down and finally in March, 1992 the opposite party recalled the advances and did not allow any withdrawals to the complainant from the accounts, leaving 13 employees and the complainant jobless. The complainant alleged that although the entire advances were assured by the Reserve Bank of India under DIGCC Scheme, the opposite party proceeded illegally to liquidate the complainants assets in July, 1993. The complainant alleged that the opposite party violated the Reserve Bank of Indias guide-lines in many respects from the beginning and rendered the unit of complainant on the verge of closure. The complainant also alleged many deficiencies on the part of the opposite party including charging of higher rate of interest than the stipulated rate of interest and recovery of loan in one year as against the stipulated period of three years causing substantial loss to the complainants unit. The complainant laid down a claim of Rs. 18,40,984.94 on various counts. The complainant filed the relevant documents in support of his claim. 2. A notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act was sent to the opposite party on 19-3-1994. However, no written version has been filed by the opposite party within the given time. Ultimately, at the time of hearing the opposite party remained absent. We therefore proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party. 3. We have heard Shri Bafna, advocate for the complainant whereas none appeared for the opposite party at the time of hearing. 4. Shri Bafna, advocate for complainant has submitted that the managing partner of the firm viz. Dansatte Electronics has alleged the following deficiencies in the service of opposite party (hereinafter referred as "Bank"). I) The Bank failed to finance the complainants unit as per the stipulation. 4. Shri Bafna, advocate for complainant has submitted that the managing partner of the firm viz. Dansatte Electronics has alleged the following deficiencies in the service of opposite party (hereinafter referred as "Bank"). I) The Bank failed to finance the complainants unit as per the stipulation. II) After the complainants unit become sick, the Bank refused to grant the complainants request for finance even though all accounts of complainants were within the sanctioned limits III) The Bank suddenly recalled all advances from the complainant. IV) Stopped all withdrawals from the complainants accounts. 5. The complainant alleged that as a result of aforesaid deficiencies in the service of the Bank, 13 employees in complainants unit become jobless. It is also contended that the complainant was granted loan facilities under "educated unemployed scheme". According to complainant, as a result of aforesaid deficiencies in the service of Bank, all pending orders at hands were required to be cancelled. The raw materials available with complainant become useless. To add to the misery of complainant, the Bank target D.I.G.C.C. Scheme of the Reserve Bank of India started activities contrary to the scheme after 1990 and very particularly since July, 1993, as a result the complainants unit is forced to close down. It is further argued by Shri Bafna that there were glaring and apparent deficiencies in the service of the Bank (1) Charging and recovering interest at the rate of 16½% to 24% during the sick period of complainants unit contrary to the Reserve Bank of India guide-lines. The guide-lines stipulated only 10% interest, (2) The Bank has recovered term loan within one year period instead of 3 years period causing shortage of cash flow to the complainant. The complainant alleged that he suffered (a) shortage of cash flow resulting in cancellation of the orders at hands from NELCO (b) Diversification was turned down, (c) All requests were turned down after the year 1990 (d) Although all accounts were in order without any notice the Bank virtually recalled the advances. (e) Raw materials worth Rs. 2,07,461.80 become useless due to cancellation of orders. The complainant therefore claimed the estimated loss of Rs. 18,40,984.92/-. 6. As stated above, after the receipt of notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, the opposite party made its appearance but did not file its written version within the stipulated period. Hence we proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party. 2,07,461.80 become useless due to cancellation of orders. The complainant therefore claimed the estimated loss of Rs. 18,40,984.92/-. 6. As stated above, after the receipt of notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, the opposite party made its appearance but did not file its written version within the stipulated period. Hence we proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party. The complainant filed his own affidavit and supporting affidavit of his Chartered Accountant Shri Satish Shetty alongwith his complaint. The complainant filed the detail and specific statement of loss of the orders from NELCO charging the excess interest which was made by the complainant. The details of accounts, circular from the Reserve Bank of India relating to Industrial and Export Credit Department, names and salaries of the worker as it could not be deducted from the units costs, the value of the goods rendered useless, correspondences between the parties. The complainant in his affidavit has stated that the Bank has filed the Suit No. 2701/1993 in the High Court of Bombay. The allegation in his complaint clearly excludes the subject matter of the suit and the subject matter of the suit and cause of action for this complaint is entirely different. After considering and scrutinising all the complanants claim, in our view, the following circumstance cannot be considered as deficiencies in the service. 7. The finance to the complainants unit which has not been sanctioned. This commission therefore cannot compell the Bank to grant the finance to complainants unit. Similarly, the allegations of rejection of diversification of proposals also cannot be considered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the loss suffered by complainant for the workers salaries amounting to Rs. 2,75,999/- cannot be considered for purposes of granting compensation. Likewise, the complainants claim amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/- for ruining the career and monthly profit also cannot be considered. Thus, the complainants aforesaid claims are therefore required to be rejected. 8. As regards the allegations of the complainant for charging excess rate of interest against the Reserve Bank of India guidelines deserve to be considered. The complainant has placed on record some vital documents in support of his allegations. There is a circular relating to Industrial Export Credit Deptt. issued by Reserve Bank of India at exhibit "A". In that circular at amended page 2, 3 5 at clause-V there is mention of the advance limits. The complainant has placed on record some vital documents in support of his allegations. There is a circular relating to Industrial Export Credit Deptt. issued by Reserve Bank of India at exhibit "A". In that circular at amended page 2, 3 5 at clause-V there is mention of the advance limits. The guide-lines for charging the rate of interest at the rate of 14% and 16.15% for this small scale industry. DIGCC scheme of self-employ to educated unemployed youth at the rate of 10% to backward districts and 12% to other districts. Admittedly, the Bank has recovered the interest from complainant contrary to the guide-lines of Reserve Bank of India amounting to Rs. 5,80,245.63. Thus, the interest on loan has been recovered by the Bank over and above the stipulated rate of interest mentioned in the guide-lines. In view of the guide-line of the Reserve Bank of India, we find that the complainant is entitled to refund of recovery of excess amount of interest in the sum of Rs. 5,80,245.63 from the Bank. Another deficiency in the service of the Bank highlighted by the complainant is that pre-mature recovery of his loan than the warranted period under the finance scheme in question. The complainant has alleged that the Bank recovered the term loan within one years as against the stipulated period of 3years causing shortage of cash flow and consequential loss to the complainants unit. A reference was made to the Reserve Bank of Indias guide-lines at exhibit "I" at page 2, 3. It is clearly stated that the term loan shall mean a loan which is payable within a period of not less than three years. In other words, the term loan is not repayable before the expiry of three years. In the instant case, within a period of one year, the Bank all of a sudden recalled the advances and did not allow the complainant any withdrawals from their accounts. There is also on record another circular from the Reserve Bank of India relating to Industrial Export Credit Deptt. at exhibit "II" at page 460, under the heading "recall all advances". The guide-lines are that the decision to recall the advances are to be taken into account unianmously as to the course of action and where all revival efforts have failed. at exhibit "II" at page 460, under the heading "recall all advances". The guide-lines are that the decision to recall the advances are to be taken into account unianmously as to the course of action and where all revival efforts have failed. In the instant case, it is clearly proved that the complainant has been granted term loan by the Bank vide its letter dated 28-3-1992. The reading of the said letter clearly shows that the loan facilities were granted to the complainant on 15-9-1981 and within the period of 6 months from the aforesaid letter was issued. It is also found from the said letter that from four accounts viz. cash credit, bills discounted, import c/c, and loan outstanding were below the sanctioned limits. In case of import cc/ nothing was outstanding. However, the Bank observed that the loan facilities are not being utilised satisfactorily. While refusing the disbursement of loan, according to Bank the bills drawn on M/s Jetking Electronics have remained unpaid. On considering this only circumstances, the Bank concluded that there was unsatisfactorily conducts of the accounts of complainant and recalled advance facility. The Bank did not stop here, but proceeded unilaterally to make the recovery from the complainants account with the Bank, and while doing so, also recovered the huge amount to the extent of Rs. 5,50,245.63 towards interest beyond the permissible limits as per the guide-lines of Reserve Bank of India. We therefore find that there are two deficiencies in the service of the Bank viz. 1) charging more interest than the guide-lines of the Reserve Bank of India, and 2) recalling the advances unilaterally without the knowledge of complainant. As a result of negligent act of Bank, the complainant has been put to heavy losses. The complainant has claimed a loss of Rs. 7 lacs on account of estimated profits, from his unit. However, it is not proper to grant the complainant Rs. 7 lacs on account of estimated loss of the profits although it has been calculated by the chartered accountant. The claim of loss is based on mere calculation and not in reality. The complainant has claimed the specific loss of the order at hands from NELCO of Tata which were for the amount of Rs. 6,33,534.80. In fact the loan facility was considered on the basis of this order in hand with the complainant. The claim of loss is based on mere calculation and not in reality. The complainant has claimed the specific loss of the order at hands from NELCO of Tata which were for the amount of Rs. 6,33,534.80. In fact the loan facility was considered on the basis of this order in hand with the complainant. The complainant alleged that he would have earned the profit if the amount of loan was disbursed to him as per schedule in terms of the agreement. The complainant therefore proved that he has been put to loss in absence of cash flow for his unit. The said loss is referable to opposite party on account of deficiency in its service. Out of the aforesaid claim of Rs. 6,35,534.80 the orders at hand for Rs. 71,068/- relates to the diversification proposals submitted to opposite party which opposite party did not sanction and hence minus the said amount of Rs. 71,068/-, the complainant suffered a net loss of Rs. 5,62,466.80. In fact the Bank has sanctioned the loan to complainant on the basis of the orders at hand from NELCO of Tata. Thus, in our view, the complainant is entitled to claim Rs. 5,62,466.80 towards compensation, on this ground. 9. The complainant also suffered a loss of Rs. 2 lacs on account of deterioration of the raw materials stored in the factory as he could not utilise it for want of cash flow from the Bank. This circumstances also is proved by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to that amount of Rs. 2 lacs as it is a direct loss suffered by him for want of cash flow from the Bank, under the terms of agreement. Thus, the total loss caused to the complainant comes to Rs. 13,50,174.23 (Rs. 5,80,245.63 + Rs. 5,62,466.80 + Rs. 2,00,000) loss of material. The aforesaid loss is the direct result of negligence in the service of Bank. The Bank has been negligent not only realising the excess amount of interest but also recalled the advances from complainants account without his knowledge. As a result the complainant was starving on account of liquidity for running the unit. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are firmly of the view that the complainant deserves the compensation of Rs. The Bank has been negligent not only realising the excess amount of interest but also recalled the advances from complainants account without his knowledge. As a result the complainant was starving on account of liquidity for running the unit. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are firmly of the view that the complainant deserves the compensation of Rs. 13,50,174.23 for the losses suffered by him on account of recovery of excess amount of interest, loss of orders at hand from NELCO of Tata and deterioration of the raw materials stored in the factory. These losses are due to non-availability of loan amount which was not released by the Bank. The business was being managed by complainant according to his own programme. It is none of the business of Bank to dictate the borrower as to how he should arrange his business. Hence, we allow this complaint and pass the following order. ORDER 10. Complaint is allowed. The opposite party viz. the Bank of India is directed to pay to complainant Rs. 13,50,174.23 towards compensation within 30 days from the receipt of this order. The complainant would be entitled to interest @ 18% per annum over the aforesaid amount till realisation if the aforesaid amounts are not paid within the period of 30 days from the receipt of this order. Complaint allowed. *****