Before the District CONSUMERS Forum:Kurnool
Present :Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 30th day of January, 2004
C.D.No.72/2002
Rayalaseema Leather Industries Co-Operative Society Limited,
Represented by its Secretary,
G.Rafiq Ahmed,
D.No.47/1, Budhavarapeta,
Kurnool District. . . . Complainant represented by his Counsel
Sri.Mohammad Iahaq, Advocate
-Vs-
1. A.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board,
Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. The Development Officer,
A.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board,
D.I.C. Complex, B-Camp, Kurnool. . . . Opposite party 1 & 2 represented by their
Counsel Sri.Y.Jaya Raju, Advocate.
O R DE R
1. This Consumer Dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking a direction on the opposite party to release the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- sanctioned under the proceedings No.D2/VLT/84/B/KNL/WCC/91-92/97 without insisting for the clearance of arrears of due to the opposite party and the Bank.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant is a Society established in 1991 at Chinna Tekur Village of Kallur Mandal on an area of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.353/1 and with Registered No.K.B.485/92/25392 under upliftment and development of the Rural artisans scheme of Andhra Pradesh Khadhi and Village Industries Board, Hyderabad vide proceedings No.B.2/VLT/B.4/VET BLUE/KNL/91-92 DATED 31.03.1992 for the purpose of the manufacture and production of export oriented commodities involving Village leather/wet blue leather processing availing the said capital expenditure of Rs.3.3 lakhs and created assets to the tune of Rs.11,08,781/-. The Andhra Pradesh Khadhi Villae Industries Board Sanctioned to the complainant working capital of Rs.5,00,000/- to be raised from any Bank to which the complainant has to bear interest to an extent of 4% per annum and the interest chargeable by the Bank over and the above 4% shall be borne by A.P.K.V.I. Board. About one year after functioning of the said factory the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh ordered the complainant vide orders in W.P.No.1550/97, to obtain no objection certificate from A.P. Pollution Control Board after duly installing the “Effluent Treatment Plant” for the prevention of pollution of surroundings and ultimately was closed vide directions of A.P. Pollution Control Board Letter dated 17.01.1997. On the approach to A.P.K.V.I. Board for the Financial Assistance to comply with the High Court directions, even though the Board has sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,98,000/- but delayed its payment and ultimately gave a new sanction of Rs.5,00,000/- in cancellation of earlier sanction of working capital, vide its proceedings No.B.2/VLT/84/B/KNL/Addl.,W.CL/91-92/97 subject to the society fulfilling three conditions namely No.(1) to repay the entire due amount of Rs.1,25,452/- and if not at least to pay the principal amount of Rs.68,341/-, (2) to provide cent percent registered security and (3) to clear of the entire dues of the Bank and the complainant keeping the assests of the Society under the first charge of the Board. Even though the Society (Complainant) could not pay the earlier dues of the Board as the Industry was not functioning due to unavoidable circumstances it has provided cent percent security on immovable property and requested the Board for relaxation of the condition of the payments of arrears to the Board and the Bank and release of the sanctioned amount. On that the Chief Executive Officer of the Board required the complainant Society to pay the 50% of Rs.68,341/- for release of the sanction amount and the Society complied the said direction by paying Rs.35,000/- on 17.03.1998 to the Board vide a Draft of Andhra Bank. But instead of the releasing the newly sanctioned working capital it has taken the said payment towards the interest due and demanded the clearance of the entire due to the Board and the Bank. The Society cannot go ahead with its schedule in the existing strained financial condition without, the release of the said sanctioned working capital, the non release of the newly sanctioned working capital of Rs.5,00,000/- inspite of the complainant complying he subsequent modified conditions and was insisted for repayment of rs.3,75,952/- vide a notice dated 30.04.2001 and hence the said conduct of the opposite parties amounting to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as by such non release to the Industry of the complainant’s Society could not work and earn profit and the purpose of the scheme mint for upliftment and development of Rural artisans under which the complainant has applied for this Industry could not be achieved, and on the other hand defeated at the acts of the opposite party apart from leaving the members of the complainant’s Industry in difficulties which its borrowers and the Investors.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the matter filing their written version.
4. The written version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 besides denying the truth and the bonafidies of the complaint averments and requiring its strict proof by the complainant allege the complainant is guilty of suppression of the true facts and the non compliance of the conditions subject to which they said sanction of Rs.6.98 lakhs (i.e., Rs.1,98 lakhs for effluent treatment plant and Rs.5.00 lakhs as additional working capital) was made on 04.07.1997 by the Board and alleged further the opposite party was liberal and the magnesium’s enough to do the best in favour of the complainant within the frame work and the guidelines issued by the Government sanctioning the difference rate of interest by issual of necessary demand draft to the D.C.C. Bank, Kurnool as per the claims of the said Bank and hence deny of any deficiency of service on their part and seeks for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. In substantiation of the complaint averments while the complainant has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1/Ex/B5 the opposite parties has relied upon documentary record in Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 besides to the sworn affidavit in reiteration of this defence.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out nay deficiency of service or the deficient conduct on the part of the opposite parties and the alleged cause of action and thereby its entitleness to the reliefs sought?:-
7. The Ex.A1/Ex.B5 is attested Xerox copy of the proceedings dated 04.071997 of the Chief Executive Officer of the opposite party No.1 sanctioning Rs.5,00,000/- towards additional working capital loan and Rs.1,98 lakhs towards effluent treatment plant under continuation programme and under consortium Bank credit for the development of wet blue unit of the complainant’s society, from out of the budget provision made available by the opposite party, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions such as No.(1) the complainant repaying the entire due of Rs.1,25,462/- as on 31.03.1997 or if not at least to pay the principal amount of Rs.6,342/- to provide cent percent registered security for additional working capital loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (2) to clear the entire dues of the Bank, (3) keeping at the first charge of the all assets of the society with the Board, (4) complainant executing general agreement bond on non judicial stamp worth of Rs.100/- along with Form-B, hypothecation deed on non judicial stamp worth of Rs.10/- registered security bond and resolution of the society etc., within the 30 days of the said sanction, through the Development Officer, Kurnool. It also provides 28 quarterly installments for the repayment. The complainant except alleging the non release of the said sanctioned additional amount did not place any cogent material proof as to the compliance of the aforesaid conditions precedence subject to the fulfillment of which the release of the said sanction occurs.
8. As the dispute is as to the non release of the additional amount covered under Ex.A1/Ex.B5 the other documentary record in Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 covering the earlier admitted proceedings is not requiring any special appreciation.
9. As a Government Agency the opposite parties has to work within the frame work or the guidelines as issued by the Government and in the circumstances of the complainant not complying the stipulated requirements there appears neither any un-naturality nor any deficient conduct on the part of the opposite parties either in not releasing the said additional sanction amount nor in causing notices in Ex.B6 and Ex.B7 demanding the compliance on defaultive conduct of the complainant.
10. Hence, in conclusion of the above discussion there being neither nay deficiency of service nor any deficient conduct on the part of the opposite parties in not releasing the said sanctioned additional amount alleged Ex.A1/Ex.B5, the cause of action of the complainant remains with any merit and force worthy of consideration of the reliefs sought by the complainant. Consequently the complainant fails and so the complaint dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 30th day of January, 2004.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER RESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite party:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Xerox copy of proceedings dated 04.07.1997 of chief Executive Officer regarding to sanction from (APKVIB) Andhra Pradesh KHADI and Village Industries Board Hyderabad for working capital and ETP fund.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Attested copy of proceedings dated 31.03.1992 issued by Chief Executive Officer, APKVIB, Hyderabad.
Ex.B2 Attested copy of Proceedings dated 12.01.1993 issued by Chief Executive Officer, APKVIB, Hyderabad.
Ex.B3 Attested copy of Proceedings dated 18.03.1993 of Chief Executive Officer, APKVIB, Hyderabad.
Ex.B4 Attested copy of Proceedings dated 09.04.1997 of Chief Executive Officer, APKVIB, Hyderabad.
Ex.B5 Attested copy of Proceedings dated 04.07.1997 of Chief Executive Officer, APKVIB, Hyderabad (Ex.B5 is and to Ex.A1).
Ex.B6 Attested copy of Proceedings dated 01.07.200 issued by APKVIB, Hyderabad.
Ex.B7 Show cause notice dated 30.04.2001 issued by APKVIB, Hyderabad.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER RESIDENT MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
