JUDGMENT DESHMUKH S.G., Judicial Member: 1- The Present Appeal is flied by the original complainant against the majority Judgment le d and Order dated 1.8.2001 in Complaint Case No. 109/2000 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Latur. 2. The appellant/ complainant's case be fore the Forum is that, she had applied for loan of Rs. 1 lac for her Vaishali computer business to the respondent. After completion of the documents, she was sanctioned t. loan by the bank on 26.8. 1997. It is contended that, the first instalment of loan Rs.25,000/- was given to her on 15.9.1997. It is contended that, there after she demanded disbursement of the remaining loan sanctioned to her at several times vide applications dated 31.1.1998, 12.2.1998, 23.3.1998, but the bank did not take cognizance. It is contended that, on 4.8.1998, the bank informed her that, she did not deposit 30% amount as per the quotation submitted in the bank. She did not deposit the receipt of - the amount utilized from loan disbursed. She i also did not deposit the principal amount and the interest in the Bank. She was asked to deposit the principal amount of loan with interest. It is also contended that, as 1 year has been passed from sanction of the loan they cannot disburse remaining loan, which is barred by efflux of time. 3. It is contended that, the complainant gave notice dated 15.9. 1998 to the bank and have intimated about the utilization of the loan, Even then the Bank did not disburse the remaining amount. She could not start the business as remaining loan amount was not disbursed to her She was required to pay rent Rs. 30,000/- per year and also towards the salary of the servants and thus she filed the complaint for directing the bank y pay compensation of Rs. 70,000/- and to disburse remaining amount of Rs. 75,000/- and also cost of Rs. 2,000/-. 4. The bank appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. The bank contended that, the complaint is not maintainable, as the dispute is in between society and the member of the society. The suit ought to have been filed in the Co-operative Court. It is further contended that, the suit is barred by limitation. 2,000/-. 4. The bank appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. The bank contended that, the complaint is not maintainable, as the dispute is in between society and the member of the society. The suit ought to have been filed in the Co-operative Court. It is further contended that, the suit is barred by limitation. It is further contended that, as the agreement dated 15.9.1997, executed of complainant, the loan amount was to utilized for the purpose for which it was sanctioned, but the complainant did not give details about the utilization, though she was demanded and thus the remaining amount not disbursed. It is also contended that, cannot be compelled to disburse remaining amount in the circumstances. It is also contended that, the complainant did not deposit the installment of the loan amount. 5. The Forum below after going through papers and hearing the parties, dismissed complaint by majority judgment. 6. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment order, the complainant came in appeal. 7. Notices were issued to the appellant as respondent. Learned Counsel Shri P.T. Dhage appeared on behalf of the appeared learned Counsel Shri Chewale appeared behalf of the respondent. We heard the counsels at sufficient length. Learned Counsel Shri Dhage submitted that, Rs, 1 lac was sanctioned for starting. Computer business. The amount of 25,000/- was disbursed on 17.9.1997 balance amount is not disbursed by, though the complainant had per for the same by writing letters. The learned Counsel submitted that, all the documents were produced before sanctioning the loan. The complainant had also executed mortgage deed in favour of the Bank as security. The learned Counsel submitted that, the bank did not take cognizance of letters even to inform the complainant for about 1 year. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent Shri Chewale submitted that, the principal amount and interest of the loan disbursed were not deposited by the complainant. The complainant also did not deposit 30% amount of the quotation for disbursing the amount in question. The learned Counsel submitted that, the borrower had submitted the quotation of Step Computers of worth Rs. 99,500/-. No vouchers and details of the amount utilized for the furniture were produced. 8. We perused the papers on record and gave our anxious thoughts to the arguments by the Counsels. On perusal of the papers, it reveals that, the basic facts are not disputed. 99,500/-. No vouchers and details of the amount utilized for the furniture were produced. 8. We perused the papers on record and gave our anxious thoughts to the arguments by the Counsels. On perusal of the papers, it reveals that, the basic facts are not disputed. The loan of Rs. 1 lac was sanctioned to the complainant for her Vaishali Computer business on 26.8.1997. It is also not disputed that, on 15.9.1997, an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards first installment of the loan was disbursed. It is also not disputed that, the complainant was persuading for disbursing the balance amount of loan of Rs. 75,000/ -. The complainant wrote the letters dated 31.1.1998, 12.2.1998, 23.3.1998, 3.8.1998. The bank did not dispute that, they received the letters in question sent by the borrower. The letters are brought on record by the complainant very now and then, the complainant was demanding disbursement of the remaining amount of Rs. 75,000/-. It appears that, the bank neither informed the complainant nor replied the letters of the complainant. It appears that, for the first time on 4.8.1998; the bank informed the complainant that, she has not deposited 30% amount of quotation in the bank and she did not deposit the receipts of the amount utilized by her. It also mentions that, the principal amount and the interest are not deposited by the complainant. It appears that, the bank informed this vide letter dated 4.8.1998 after more than 1 year from the date of the sanction of the loan. 9. It is to be noted that, so-called agreement dated 15.9.1997 between the borrower S and the bank is not brought on record by the bank to show that, the borrower did not r act as per the terms and conditions of the a agreement in question. It is tried to contend that, the borrower had submitted the quotation of Step Computer worth Rs. 99,500/- but the borrower did not deposit 30% of the t amount of the quotation for disbursement of the loan. It is to be noted that, this fact has been informed by the bank for the first time on 4.8.1998. The loan was sanctioned on 26.8.1997 i.e. after 1 year of the sanction of s the loan. 99,500/- but the borrower did not deposit 30% of the t amount of the quotation for disbursement of the loan. It is to be noted that, this fact has been informed by the bank for the first time on 4.8.1998. The loan was sanctioned on 26.8.1997 i.e. after 1 year of the sanction of s the loan. As the bank did not produce the copy of the agreement on record, it is difficult to hold that, there was agreement between the Bank and borrower that, she should deposit 30% amount of the quotation in the bank before disbursement of the loan. The written statement filed by the respondent also nowhere discloses that, there was a condition that, the complainant is to deposit 30% amount of quotation in the bank before disbursing the loan. We have mentioned that, the complainant had executed the mortgage deed in favour of the bank. It is apparent that, the bank did not inform about the deposit of 30% loan or even about the deposit of the receipts of the furniture for about 1 year. Letter informing that, the sanctioned loan cannot be disbursed as one year is passed, has been sent on 4.8.1998 i.e. after more than 1 year of the sanction of the loan. We have mentioned that, the complainant was insisting for disbursement of the remaining amount by writing letters, which are not disputed by the Respondent. 10. In (Delhi Financial Corporation and another Vs. Super Vehicles Fabrique and others), 2002(III) C.P.J. 281 (N.C)., the Hon'ble National Commission has observed that, a three line letters comes only after more than a year stating loan case has been closed. To keep a loanee on tenterhooks for over a year itself is a deficiency in service. In the instant case also, the Bank did not inform the complainant about the disbursement of the loan. The complainant was informed that, they cannot disburse the loan after 1 year of sanction. 11. It is true that, Consumer Forum cannot override the decision taken by the bank, as it is power of discretion of the bank. But in the instant case the loan was sanctioned and part of it was disbursed and the balance amount was not disbursed. Not only that, the borrower was not informed about non disbursement of the loan. 11. It is true that, Consumer Forum cannot override the decision taken by the bank, as it is power of discretion of the bank. But in the instant case the loan was sanctioned and part of it was disbursed and the balance amount was not disbursed. Not only that, the borrower was not informed about non disbursement of the loan. As per the ratio in Delhi Financial Corporation's case (supra), there is deficiency on the part of the bank for not informing and not disbursing the loan sanctioned for more than 1 year. It also appears from the record that, the complainant had raised the loan for her Vaishali computers. It appears that, the loan was got sanctioned for the expansion of the computer business. The bank has committed default in performing banking' service in advancing promised loan to the complainant. It will not be proper to direct the bank to advance remaining loan to the complainant. The appropriate directions will be to direct the bank to pay compensation to the complainant arising from the said deficiency in its service. The papers on record disclose that, the computer business of the complainant was already in existence and loan appears to have been got sanctioned for expansion of the business in question. In the circumstances, in our view, considering the evidence on record as to the monetary loss suffered by the complainant and the mental agony under gone by her, we are of the view that, Rs. 10.000/- would be the adequate compensation payable to the complainant. We pass the following order: ORDER 1) The Appeal is allowed. 2) The impugned order passed by the Forum is hereby quashed and set-aside and the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation within a month, on failure, the amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the Judgment till realization of the amount. 3) The respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of the appeal to the appellant. 4) Copies of the order be supplied to the parties. Appeal allowed.