ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) - For seeking explanation on vital aspects of this case Zonal Manager of the appellant-bank was called, he is present in person alongwith Law Officer. He has explained the procedure of loaning in a case like the one, out of which this appeal has arisen. 2.Admitted facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent No. 1 through its sole proprietor applied for grant of loan for establishing a Guest House at Hamirpur to Khadi and Village Industries Board, Shimla-respondent No. 2 and its Branch Office respondent No. 3 at Hamirpur. This case was sponsored by respondent No. 2 to the appellant No. 1 vide Annexure C-10 amongst other one of the conditions besides other was as under:- “Your Bank will appraise the project technically as well as economically. After the project is approved and the bank decides to finance the project, a copy of sanction letter (with terms and conditions on which sanction is accorded), will be endorsed to the undersigned as well as to the A.D.O. Khadi & Village Industries Board Hamirpur after release of the first instalment of loan to the Borrower, the Bank would claim the M.Money on the prescribed format from its nodal branch situated at Mumbai, where adequate funds have already been placed at the disposal of the Bank by the KVIC. The M.Money when received by the Bank would be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of the borrower on the lines of the PMRY programme. Full cost of project as appraised shall be sanctioned by the Bank and 90% of the sanctioned project would be disbursed and 10% being the promoter’s equity. The interest earned by the beneficiary on the fixed deposit of the margin money assistance will be utilized for servicing the part of debits raised by the Bank on account of interest liabilities. The margin money would be converted into grant only after the period of 2 years from the date of FDR.” (Emphasis supplied) 3.It was admitted on behalf of the appellant that respondent No. 1 invested Rs. 1 lac from his own pocket, whereas remaining Rs. 9 lacs were given as loan by the appellant in terms of letter of respondent No. 2, (supra). 1 lac from his own pocket, whereas remaining Rs. 9 lacs were given as loan by the appellant in terms of letter of respondent No. 2, (supra). 4.As per above extracted forwarding letter from respondent No. 2 to appellant No.1, it was incumbent upon the letter to have immediately obtained 25% of the loaned amount as margin money from appellant No. 2. First instalment according to the Zonal Manager was released on 7.3.2001. Instead of immediately asking for the release of the margin money from the appellant No. 2, the said respondent after about 2-1/2 months on 21.5.2001 asked for remittance of the margin money Rs. 2.5 lacs to appellant No. 2. 5.Here we may notice that appellant No. 1 admits that sufficient funds were placed at the disposal of appellant No. 2 by respondent No. 2 out of which the margin money was to be released by the said appellant to the loaning branch like appellant No. 1 in the present case. 6.In this background instead of releasing the amount of margin money, appellant No. 2 started raising queries/objections against terms of the above extracted clause of the sponsoring letter by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1. After receipt of margin money it was to be invested in the shape of a FDR for a period of 2 years and was to be adjusted in the loan account after two years of the implementation of the project in question. So far interest component on this margin money is concerned, it was to service the interest accrued during the period. Respondent No. 1 implemented the project and intimated the appellant No. 1 in that behalf is again admitted between the parties. 7.Scheme of subsidy was discontinued by respondent No. 2 as is evident from Annexure R-1/A sent by respondent No. 2 to its Hamirpur Branch. Besides this, vide Annexure R-1, Deputy Chief Executive Officer (VI) informed respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 1 was to eligible for margin money scheme as it is admissible to only Dhaba’s not serving liquor and guest house is not covered under such scheme. All correspondence remained between appellants on one side and respondent No. 2 on the other. At no point of time till the filing of the reply to the complaint, this fact was ever disclosed either by the appellants or by respondents No. 2 and 3. All correspondence remained between appellants on one side and respondent No. 2 on the other. At no point of time till the filing of the reply to the complaint, this fact was ever disclosed either by the appellants or by respondents No. 2 and 3. Zonal Manager today stated that orally respondent No. 1 must have been informed. This submission is prima facie afterthought aimed at overcoming the liability in this case. Reason being that Corporate, like appellants as well as respondents No. 2 and 3 always speak through writings and not like two individuals as stated by Zonal Manager. As such we hereby reject this stand on behalf of the appellants. When and by whom, the respondent No. 1 was informed, the Zonal Manager of the bank, had no answer. This was also not the defence set out in its reply by the bank to the complaint. 8.As a result of the non release of the margin money, and its being invested by the appellants, respondent No. 1 was deprived of the servicing of interest accrued on loan amount out of the interest that was to accrue on the FDR of the margin money and at the same time he had to refund this amount of appellant No. 1 for no fault of his. Besides this he had to incur the liability for payment of interest on the amount of FDR that was not prepared and adjusted as per sanction (supra). Though as per above extracted portion after two years of the implementation of the project this was to be adjusted towards the loan amount which was to result in the reduction of the interest on this amount out of the total loan amount of Rs. 10 lacs. 9.Complaint was filed against the appellants, and the respondent No. 2 and 3, and as already noted both disputed their liability for the payment of any margin money amount. District Forum below vide its order dated 8.8.2007 in Complaint No. 92/2005, has ordered the appellants to adjust the amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs in the loan account of the complainant and to waive of interest/penal interest to the extent of Rs. 2.5 lacs. Respondent No. 1 has also been allowed costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence this appeal by the appellants. 10.At the time of hearing Mr. 2.5 lacs in the loan account of the complainant and to waive of interest/penal interest to the extent of Rs. 2.5 lacs. Respondent No. 1 has also been allowed costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence this appeal by the appellants. 10.At the time of hearing Mr. Surinder Saklani learned Counsel for the appellant stated that this being a case of subsidy, therefore, neither his client was service provider nor is respondent No. 1 a consumer, as such on this short ground alone the appeal deserves to be allowed and consequently the complaint dismissed. With a view to advance this submission reliance was placed by him on a decision of National Commission in the case of M/s Sawheny Export House Pvt. Limited v. Noida & Ors and M/s Sawhney Brothers v. Noida & Ors, 1993(3) CPJ 337 (NC) Admittedly subsidy is given as an incentive on the total project cost and is over and above such cost, whereas margin money is a part of the loan amount and is to be disbursed and can be availed by a loanee like respondent No. 1 in the appeal before us on fulfillment of certain conditions. Besides this, he was never informed either by the appellants or the respondents No. 2 and 3 at any point of time till the filing of reply to the complaint before District Forum below. 11.In this context stand of appellants as well as respondent No. 2 and 3 is that appellant completed the project and thereafter, on having implemented the same for two years asked for adjustment of the margin money in the loan account as also claimed benefit of interest accrued on the FDR for servicing the interest in terms of the letter dated 5.12.2000 relied on by all the parties in this case. On what terms the loan was sanctioned by the appellant No. 1 was required to be inform the respondent No. 2 Board. There is nothing on record to indicate anything in this behalf. Thereafter when on release of first instalment of loan, appellant No. 2 did not remit the amount of subsidy of Rs. 2.5 lacs, no intimation was given to respondent No. 1 either by the appellants and or respondent No. 2. There is nothing on record to indicate anything in this behalf. Thereafter when on release of first instalment of loan, appellant No. 2 did not remit the amount of subsidy of Rs. 2.5 lacs, no intimation was given to respondent No. 1 either by the appellants and or respondent No. 2. Similar is the position regarding ineligibility of respondent No. 2 as is now the stand taken up by appellant No. 1 in view of Annexure R-1 and R-2 placed by it on record as a defence. Least that was expected of appellants and respondents No. 2 and 3 was that, he should have been put to caveat regarding his ineligibility for the grant of margin money, therefore the same being not released. If despite having been told immediately after sanction of loan of this fact, respondent No. 1 still persisted, then in that event disbursement of loan should have been withheld. No such action was taken again either by the appellant No. 1 or respondent No. 2 and 3. To the contrary full sanctioned loan was admittedly released by respondent No. 1. 12.In any event now both the appellants are precluded from pleading that the respondent No. 1 was ineligible to get benefit under margin money scheme, and therefore the appellant No. 2 has rightly withheld the release of the said amount despite sufficient funds being available with it. It was pointed out during the course of hearing of this case by the Zonal Manager that in all other cases sponsored by respondent No.2, the margin money has been released, except in the case of respondent No. 1. 13.The circumstances of this case and on the above facts respondent No. 1 changed his position on the holding out of respondent No. 2 and appellant No. 1, to his disadvantage by first making his own investment and then raising loan and finally by implementing the project. Thus according to us both of them are estopped from disputing entitlement of the appellant so far release of margin money is concerned, on the analogy of promissory estoppel. Even otherwise by their act and conduct both, i.e. the appellant No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 are prohibited from putting the entitlement of respondent No. 1 for the benefit of margin money in jeopardy without intimating him at any point of time till the filing of complaint. Even otherwise by their act and conduct both, i.e. the appellant No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 are prohibited from putting the entitlement of respondent No. 1 for the benefit of margin money in jeopardy without intimating him at any point of time till the filing of complaint. 14.We may hasten to add that we are alive to the situation that there cannot be any estoppel against law. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case there is no other material placed on record by the appellants and respondent No. 2 and 3 to the effect that after 5.12.2000 respondent No. 1 was ever put to notice regarding his disentitlement and despite such notice he continued with his project. This was even otherwise necessary in accordance with the principles of natural justice, equity, fairplay and good conscious, so that said respondent could either think of arranging money from other sources or to drop the project, if he so desired. And above all respondent No 1 is being deprived of the benefit of the margin money for no fault on his part. This is also not a case of either mis-statment or withholding the facts so far he is concerned. This is another ground for rejection of this appeal. 15.As already noted this is not a case of subsidy which was a matter before National Commission in the decision relied upon by Mr. Saklani. Present is a case of allowing part of the loan amount at margin money to be availed at a later date subject to fulfillment of the conditions by a loanee like respondent No. 1 which in the instant case he admittedly did. Scheme was closed somewhere in the year 2004. At the time of hearing it was admitted on behalf of respondent No. 2 that it was not retrospective. 16.Thus we are further satisfied that this litigation was thrust upon the respondent No. 1 without any fault on his part by the appellants and respondents No. 2 and 3. To the contrary, he fulfilled all the conditions and at the same time complied therewith when hoimplemented the project in the year 1992 and the margin money was to be adjusted towards loan in the year 2004. To the contrary, he fulfilled all the conditions and at the same time complied therewith when hoimplemented the project in the year 1992 and the margin money was to be adjusted towards loan in the year 2004. 17.In this view of the matter in our opinion he is entitled to be compensated for undue harassment and mental torture caused to him because of acts of commission and commission on the part of the appellants, as well as respondent No. 2 and 3 on the analogy of the principles of Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC, despite having not filed any appeal. 18.No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- alongwith compensation for harassment and mental torture caused to respondent No. 1 which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. Appellants as well as the respondent No. 2 and 3 are further held liable for punitive damages to respondent No. 1 to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid in equal shares. Resultantly the appellant No. 1 is now directed to recast the account statement after treating the receipt of margin money from appellant No. 2 w.e.f. 6.4.2001 (we have allowed one month time to the said appellant for the receipt of the margin money from appellant No. 2), and thereafter treating the FDR having been prepared on this date i.e. 6.4.2001 and then to appropriate the interest component of this FDR towards the service of interest on the loan amount and also the adjust the margin money in the loan account of respondent No. 1 in the year 2004 taking the date of implementation of project intimated to appellant 1 as well as respondents No. 2 and 3 in the year 2002. Since loan have been admittedly repaid, as such if after recasting the account in terms of this order any amount is found payable by appellant No.1 to respondent No. 1, it shall be refunded alongwith interest at the rate at which loan was provided by the bank to the loanee i.e. respondent No. 1 from 2004 till the date of payment/deposit whichever is earlier. Subject to these directions the appeal is finally disposed of. All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Subject to these directions the appeal is finally disposed of. All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. At the same time it is ordered that the above directions shall be complied with by the appellants on or before 30th June, 2008 and the Zonal Manager, of the bank will file affidavit reporting compliance before us. Case for this limited purpose be listed on 1.7.2008. Office is directed to supply a certified copy of this order to the learned Counsel for the parties free of cost as per rules. M.R.B. ———————