Date of filing:- 21/09/2015

Date of Order:- 11/04/2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Dispute Case No. 35 of 2016.

Dhansingh Rana, S/o. Late Karuna @ Karuna Sindhu Rana, aged about 46 years Occupation- Cultivation, R/o- Villege &Post-Jokhia pali P.s/Tahasil –Bijepur, Dist- Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.

• V e r s u s -

Branch Manager, Union Bank of India,Talpadar, P.O/P.S/-Bijepur, Dist-Bargarh .... ..... ..... Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri Satya Prakash Mahapatra, Advocate

For the Opposite Party :- Ex-parte.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).

Dt.11/04/2017. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Ajanta Subhadarsinee, Member (W)

The Complainant has filed this case U/s-12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986, against the Opposite Party, alleging deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice.

The Brief fact of the case is that the Complainant namely Sri Dhansingh Rana resident of Jokhipali, P.s./Tahasil-Bijepur, Dist. Bargarh approached the Opposite Party i.e.. The Branch, Manager, Union Bank of India, Talpadar, P.o. Talpadar, P.s/Tahsil-Bijepur, Dist-Bargarh for grant of an agricultural loan of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh )only for in his agricultural earning. The Complainant is entirely depend upon his agricultural earning for his livelihood. After going through all the documents submitted by the Complainant the Opposite Party agreed to sanction the loan amount i.e. Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh )only in favour of the Complainant and accordingly directed the Complainant to deposite 1/4^th of the sanction loan amount. As per the direction of the Opposite Party the Complainant deposited Rs.53,000/-(Rupees fifty three thousand)only in the loan account bearing number- 493402010002125 on Dt.02/08/2016 maintained by the Opposite Party Bank. But on Dt.15/09/2016 the Opposite Party refused to grant the loan in favour of the Complainant without giving any reason, rather on personal grudge or enmity.

In support of his case, the Complainant has relied on the following xerox copies of documents:-

1. ROR vide Ms. Khata No.14 of village and Mouza Jokhipali, land Rent Receipt for the year 2014-15 along with certified copies thereof.

2. Encumbrance certificates.

3. Mortgage Deed executed by the Complainant.

4. Affidavit sworn by Complainant for facilitating loan of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh)only.

5. Legal opinion of Advocate Ramakanta Satpathy, Bank Advocate, Union Bank of India.

6. Deposit slip of Rs.53,000/-(Rupees fifty three thousand)only with seal of the Union Bank of India, there on.

    

Notice was duly served on the Opposite Party Bank. Neither the Opposite Party nor his legal representative appeared before the Forum on the date fixed and hence the Opposite Party was set ex parte on Dt.13/12/2016 and the case was heard and posted for ex-parte order.

In view of the above pleading, the following are three points for consideration.

1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as envisaged in the provision of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 ?

2. Whether the claim of the Complainant is just and genuine ?

3. Whether the Opposite Party has caused any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by non granting the agricultural loan to the Complainant ?

Heard the Advocate for Complainant and perused the documents available in the Case record. The Complainant produced the original documents for verification and the same were verified. The Forum has gone through the complaint petition along with the written argument and the documents filed by the Complainant. And heard the case on Dt.11/01/2017.

Now the question arises whether the complainant is the Consumer of Opposite Party or not.

Dealing with the above question it is mentioned here that Banking is a commercial function. Banking means acceptance, for the purpose of lending or investment of deposite of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise, [Section 5(b) of Banking Regulation Act 1949]. The intention of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 is to protect Consumers of such services rendered by the banks. Banks provide or render service/facility to its customers or even non customers. They render facilities/services such as remittances, accepting deposits, providing for lockers, facility for discounting of cheques, granting loans etc.

In Vimal Chandra Grever Vrs. Bank of India, II (2000) CPJ 11 (SC)=IV (2000) SLT 202= II (2000) CLT 264 (SC)=AIR 2000 SC 2181, the Honble Court has held that banking is business transaction between bank and customers. Such customers are Consumers within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act.

The Complainant in his Complaint petition and written argument has submitted that he has approached the Opposite Party Bank for an agricultural loan of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh)only for earning his livelihood. The Opposite party bank agreed to sanction the loan and directed the Complainant to deposite 1/4^th of the sanctioned loan in the Bank. As per the direction of Opposite Party, the Complainant deposited Rs.53.000/-(Rupees fifty three thousand)only in the Opposite Party Bank, bearing Account Number-493402010002125 on Dt.02/08/2016, for the requirement of said loan. Thus the Complainant become the customer/consumer of the Opposite Party Bank by opening the account in his name in the Opposite party Bank, i.e. Union Bank of India, Talpadar.

Secondly, the document filed by the Complainant i.e. Copy of M.S. Khata No.14 which is recorded in the name of late father Karuna @ Karuna Sindhu Rana reveals that the Complainant is possessing and cultivating agricultural land and out of the said agricultural earning he maintains his livelihood. Being a genuine farmer he has approached the Opposite party Bank for sanctioning of the said loan. The copy of the mortgage deed which is available in the case record reveals that one official of Union Bank of India, Talpadar Branch, has signed over the same. So it proves that the Opposite Party Bank has got full knowledge about the sanctioning of the loan in favour of the Complainant and about the execution of said mortgage deed. Had it not been the case the official of United Bank of India, Talpadar should not have sign over the same. The copy of the legal opinion available in the case record further reveals that the Complainant has got absolute right, title and interest over the landed property, mortgage in favour of the Opposite party Bank. So it is clear that the claim of the Complainant is just and genuine. Being not appearing before this forum the Opposite Party has not proved the contrary.

Thirdly, whether the Opposite Party Bank is liable for negligence in providing Consumer service to the Complainant as per the Complaint ?

It is evident from the evidences/documents filed by the Complainant that for an agricultural loan amounting Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh)only the Complainant approached the Opposite party Bank, who agreed to sanction the loan. So as per the direction of the Opposite party Bank, the Complainant deposited 1/4^th of sanction loan amount i.e. Rs.53,000/-(Rupees fifty three thousand)only on Dt.02/08/2016 for requirement of the said loan. Also the Complainant prepared all the legal documents necessary for the above loan. He has incurred Rs.2,050/-(Rupees two thousand fifty)only for that purpose and in addition to that he has summed of an amount of Rs.18,000/-(Rupees eighteen thousand)only as his loss of income for a period of three months awaiting to fetch the said loan. The allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party Bank refused to sanction loan, on Dt.15/09/2016 in keeping personal enmity/ grudge.

These things are not disproved by the Opposite party Bank in any manner and his non-appearance in the Forum and absence of any contrary to prove against the Complainant, make the allegation of the Complainant, true. Such act of the Opposite party is nothing but negligence in providing consumer service to the Complainant for which the Complainant seeks the redressal of the forum to direct the Opposite Party to release the loan amounting of Rs.2,00,00/-(Rupees two lakh)only in favour of him or else.

Thus it reveals that the Opposite Party Bank is liable for negligence in providing consumer service to the Complainant. The Opposite Party Bank could came to District forum to give the relevant reasons for non sanctioning of agricultural loan in favour of the Complainant. After receiving the notice from the Forum, non appearance of the Opposite Party Bank shows that he has nothing to say about the loan dispute alleged by the Complainant. Basing on the Complaint, evidences and documents available on record the Forum ordered as follows.

O R D E R

The Forum hereby directed the Opposite party Bank to sanction the agricultural loan of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh)only in favour of the Complainant, subject to the condition that the Complainant submitted before the Opposite Party Bank all the legal documents necessary for granting the loan as per Law of Banking. And further the Opposite Party Bank hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand )only towards mental agony and harassment caused to the Complainant. The order shall be carried out within thirty days from the date of order. In default of which legal action will be taken against the Opposite party Bank as per Consumer protection Act.1986.

Complaint allowed and disposed off accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

I agree, I agree, ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

Member (W)

(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.