Haryana

Ambala

CC/178/2018

Rinku - Complainant(s)

Versus

BM Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.: 178 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :  05.06.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :  29.07.2019.

 

Rinku s/o Shri Baldev, r/o village Sambhalkha Keshopur, Tehsil Saha, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Bihta Branch, Distt. Ambala.
2. Zonal Office, Allahabad Bank, Bank Square, Sector – 17B, Chandigarh through its Zonal Manager,
3. Allahabad Bank, Head Office 2 N.S. Road, Kolkata-700 001, through its General Manager.

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri Iqbal Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri S.K. Mehta, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.         

 

Order:        SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To disburse his loan alongwith the subsidy, so received from the Government for the purchase of Buffaloes.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the him for the last more than two years. .
3. To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of business loss suffered by him.
382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant applied a loan for the purchase of two buffaloes under Mini Dairy Scheme with the OP No.1, which sanctioned the loan of Rs.1.5 lacs in his favour, after obtaining the requisite documents and completing the formalities. The OP No.1 also issued a letter dated 25.01.2016 to the Sub Divisional Officer, Animal Husbandry and Dairy Department, Ambala with respect to sanction of his loan under the said scheme and said SDO fixed the purchase date as 02.02.2016 and issued a letter addressing him the date of purchase, time and place as well as details of application/purchaser i.e. complainant. The OP No.1 informed him that he has to pay some margin money and rest of amount will be paid by the bank as loan, but at the time of purchase the buffaloes, the OP No.1 requested him to arrange for payment of whole of the amount from his own pocket, as some of the formalities are yet required for the disbursement of the loan. The OP No.1 also assured that the loan amount will be disbursed to him alongwith the subsidy from the Government. Accordingly, he agreed and paid purchase money from his pocket for purchasing the buffaloes. On 04.02.2016, the OP No.1 certified that the animals are actually present at beneficiary place and bill is presented for the first time and all the formalities of Mini Dairy Scheme has been completed. As per Mini Dairy norms, the OP No.1 also put tag/token of the Allahabad Bank on the buffaloes purchased by him, in order to create charge over them and too without disbursing the loan to him. The OP No.1 assured him that all the formalities have been completed and now the loan amount and subsidy will be shortly given to him after few months. Since February 2016, he is regularly visiting the OP No.1 branch, but till date, neither the loan was disbursed nor the subsidy was given to him. He also issued legal notice to the OPs through his counsel, which was duly served upon the OPs, but all in vain. This way, the OPs committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version and have raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability and time barred. On merits, it is stated that the no legal notice has been received by the OPs. The documents supplied/submitted by the complainant, had been returned by the OP No.1 to the complainant with the instruction that in the area of complainant there is another branch of the bank and the OP No.1 not come within the preview of service area, so the complainant approach the concerned bank to get the loan and when the documents of complainant were returned to him, so question of demanding/paying margin money does not arise at all. The complainant never visited the branch as alleged after receiving the documents from the OP No.1. As the buffaloes were not financed by the OP No.1, so the question of affixing the tag/token of OP No.1 bank, does not arise at all. The rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to     C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Shri S.L. Saini, Senior Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Bihta as Annexure RA alongwith documents as Annexure R1 to R4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated version as mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant applied a loan for the purchase of two buffaloes under Mini Dairy Scheme with the OP No.1, which sanctioned the loan of Rs.1.5 lacs in his favour. However, at the time of purchase the buffaloes, the OP No.1 requested the complainant to arrange for payment of whole of the amount from his own pocket. Accordingly, the complainant paid purchase money from his pocket for purchasing the buffaloes. On 04.02.2016, the OP No.1 certified that the animals are actually present at beneficiary place and bill is presented for the first time and all the formalities of Mini Dairy Scheme has been completed. Since February 2016, the complainant was regularly visiting the OP No.1 branch, but till date, neither the loan was disbursed nor the subsidy was given to him.

6.                On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs reiterated version as mentioned in the written version. He argued that the documents supplied/submitted by the complainant, had been returned by the OP No.1 to the complainant with the instruction that in the area of complainant there is another branch of the bank. The OP No.1 not come within the preview of service area, so the complainant approach the concerned bank to get the loan.

7.                From perusal of letter dated 25.01.2016 (Annexure C-2), it is evident that the OP No.1 had sanctioned the loan of Rs.1.50 lacs to the complainant i.e. Rinku s/o Baldev, r/o village Sambhalkha, District Ambala for purchasing of three buffaloes. In this letter, the OP No.1 also requested the Animal Husbandry and Dairy Department, Ambala to provide the loan and subsidy amount. From the document Annexure C-3 of OP No.1, it is apparent that the formalities of mini-dairy scheme of complainant and others was duly completed and purchase as per mini dairy norms. The grievance of the complainant is that initially the OP No.1 sanctioned his loan, but thereafter, neither the loan was disbursed nor the subsidy was given to him. Whereas, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the OP No.1 bank does not come within the preview of service area, as such, the complainant may approach the concerned bank to get the loan. It is pertinent to mention here that since the OPs had denied to pay the loan amount to the complainant, even after sanctioning the same, so the onus was upon the OPs to prove that why the loan amount to the complainant is not payable. But in the present case, the OPs did not produce any documentary evidence to support their contentions. It is also admitted fact that the other branch in the area of complainant, was opened after sanctioning the loan to the complainant. As such, we do not hesitate to conclude that the OPs are deficient in providing services and are thus liable to disburse the loan amount alongwith the subsidy, so received from the Government for the purchase of Buffaloes by the complainant. They are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigations expenses.

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To disburse the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith the subsidy, if any, received from the Government for the purchase of Buffaloes, by the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced on :29.07.2019.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)           (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member             President