IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of March, 2017
Filed on 27.09.2014
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.241/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Helen Hakkim 1. The Branch Manager
W/o Hakkim State Bank of India
Thoppil Bungalow ADM Branch, Mullackal
Karuvatta P.O. Alappuzha – 688 011
Haripad, Alappuzha
(By Adv. P.S. Geethakumari) 2. The Regional Manager
State Bank of India
Regional Business Office
Beach Road, Alappuzha
Pin – 688 012
(By Adv. C. Parameswaran –
Opposite parties 1 and 2)
3. The Senior Marketing Officer
Directorate of Marketting
and Inspection, Second Floor
Remakrishna Buildding
Near Manorama
East Thampanoor
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is a nascent horticulturist engaged in agricultural activities like farming of coconut, banana, tapioca, vegetables as well as allied activities like fisheries and poultry. The complainant has been working with other farmers/agriculturists in the area for the purpose of tackling the issues in marketing their products. The complainant under the motivation and support of her fellow farmers came forward to set up a project under the ‘Scheme for Development/ Strengthening of Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure, Grading and Standardization implemented by Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India. The project report for the same was prepared and it was vetted by NABARD and the Directorate of Marketing & Inspection which is the 3rd opposite party, the said project was finalized after proper monitoring and supervision with a total project cost of Rs.30,00,000/- for which a part is subsidy granted by the Central Government and the complainant’s contribution being Rs.10,00,000/-. The project of the complainant was named M/s. Kopparamandi Project. The complainant approached the first opposite party with the detailed project report along with the approved building plan for availing a loan. After verifying the plan, reports, visiting the location and being satisfied with the viability of the project, the first opposite party sanction a loan to Rs.20,00,000/- out of the total project cost which is to be disbursed in various phases. The complainant furnished a collateral security of property worth Rs.60,00,000/- for the above loan. So far the first opposite party has disbursed a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- out of the total loan sanctioned to the complainant in five installments. As per the Central Government Scheme, the project has to be completed within the prescribed time for availing the grant and subsidy offered by them. By the end of February 2013, the infrastructure of the project was almost completed with a total investment of Rs.32,00,000/- against the bank disbursement of Rs.18,50,000/-. On 06.03.2013, the complainant requested the first opposite party to release the remaining loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for facilitating the completion of the said project. However, the first opposite party was lax in disbursing the remaining loan amount without sufficient cause and not even responding to the request of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant approached to the 2nd opposite party with her grievance and after her repeated attempts, the 2nd opposite party sent the first opposite party and a new Field Officer to visit the site for inspection. Subsequently the first opposite party informed the complainant that they could disburse only Rs.1,00,000/- and the complainant was instructed to present a revised request for this amount. On 16.04.2013, the complainant sent a request for disbursing the said amount. However the 1st and 2nd opposite parties delayed the disbursal of the amount on untenable grounds. Meanwhile since the project is a time bound one, the complainant pooled her resources and completed the basic infrastructure of the building. She obtained ownership certificate from the Karuvatta Grama Panchayat and tax was also paid in behest of this. Again the complainant sent requests on 6.5.2013 and 11.5.2013 along with the copies of the ownership certificate, stage certificate, tax receipt and with the approved plan. However the 1st and 2nd opposite parties did not pay any heed to it and were not satisfied with the documents or explanation given by the complainant and were not ready to disburse the remaining loan amount citing different reasons at different times despite the persistent requests and frantic efforts from the complainant. As the opposite parties failed to disburse the loan amount due to the complainant though she fulfilled every requirement as per the conditions of loan agreement, the complainant filed a complaint before this Hon’ble Forum as against the then Branch Manager, State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Alappuzha as O.P.No.261/2013. While the complaint was pending, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties convinced the complainant that they would disburse the remaining loan amount soon if the complainant withdrew the complaint. Believing this false promises and pretense, though the complainant was withdrawn, no payment has been forthcoming so far from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Then the complainant sent a request to the 3rd opposite party vide letter dated 5.6.2014 for redressing her grievance but the 3rd opposite party has refrained from responding the letter and doing the needful for and on behalf of the complainant. The opposite parties are intentionally refraining from disbursing the said amount timely thereby causing the loss of subsidy amount and thus causing her huge financial loss, stress and mental agony. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is as follows:-
The complainant who is the wife of one of Chief Managers of the opposite party with a view to get unlawful pecuniary benefits deviated the construction by constructing the proposed warehouse building as a residential one and the said construction is not tallying with the construction as depicted in the project. The complainant who had availed the financial assistance from the opposite party Bank under the aforesaid scheme had deviated the construction of the proposed warehouse with malafide intention to mis-utilize and diversion of benevolent funds under the government sponsored scheme. The said deviation of the proposed warehouse construction was detected by the field officer of the opposite party on 18.4.2013, when he visited the site to ascertain the present stage of construction, amount utilized etc. The complainant with covert intention had availed the aforesaid financial assistance from the opposite party for obtaining undue pecuniary benefits. It is suspected that the complainant was in league with her husband for sharing the unlawful gain so obtained. As stated above, the financial assistance so granted to the complainant was as per the scheme of NABARD and hence the instant complaint filed without arraying NABARD on the party array is bad for non joinder of necessary party. The complainant who has mis-utilized the benevolent fund under the said scheme is not entitled to get any subsidy. The opposite parties have already disbursed the loan up to 92.50% and the opposite parties could not disburse the balance only for the reason of lapses and commissions on the part of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. Notice sent to the 3rd opposite party served. 3rd opposite party represented, but not filed version.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A18. Exts.A3 and A15 marked subject to objection. The Manager of the SBI, Ullala Branch was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked Exts.B1and B2. Exts.B1 and B2 marked subject to objection. One witness was examined as RW2. Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW1. The mahazor and report marked as Exts.C1 and C2.
4. The points came up for considerations are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. The admitted facts of the case are the following:-
i) Complainant had availed a Agricultural term loan of Rs.20 lakhs on 2.1.2012 for purpose of construction of infrastructure under the Government scheme.
(ii) The first opposite party has disbursed a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- out of loan sanctioned in 5 installments.
6. According to the complainant even though the infrastructure of the project was almost complied with a total investment of Rs.32 lakhs against the bank disbursement of Rs.18,50,000/-, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties delayed the disbursal of the remaining loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on untenable grounds. Hence the complainant filed O.P.No.261/2013 for the redressal of her grievance before this Forum and as per the assurance made by the opposite parties she withdrew the complaint, but no payment forthcoming so far from the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version stating that the proposed building was constructed against the plan approved by the competent authority under the scheme and the complainant has mis-utilized the benevolent fund under the said scheme and is not entitled to get the subsidy. The letters sent by the complainant to the opposite party for sanctioning the remaining loan amount are produced. It show that she had taken so many efforts for getting the balance due amount. It is pertinent to notice that after commencement of trial, the project was approved by the NABARD and intimation was given to the first opposite party regarding the sanctioning of the final installment. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have not raised any objection regarding the same. At the same time, the opposite parties filed a commission application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to assess the present position of the building. Even though complainant filed strong objection to the commission application, this Forum allowed the petition and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for ascertaining whether there is any deviation from the original plan so as to affect the true nature of the construction and its uses. The commission report and mahazor were filed and it marked as Exts.C1 and C2. In the Ext.C1 report she stated that the only difference that she noted against the original plan is the construction of staircase and division of the hall and bathroom and it was seen in the modified plan. She also stated that the modified plan was approved by the NABARD. We came to the opinion that even though there was a slight deviation from the original plan, it was approved by the NABARD and the final subsidy amount was allotted to the complainant as per the recommendation of the first opposite party. Then thereby question for consideration is whether the opposite party is justified in witholding the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. In a ruling reported in II 2012 CPJ 354 Hon’ble National Commission laid down that “Once a building had been constructed up to roof level, and bank had disbursed loan, it could not at the stage with-hold disbursement of remaining loan amount on grounds of purported non compliance in respect of the foundation of the building.” In the instant case opposite party with-hold the disbursement of the remaining loan at the final stage stating that the complainant has deviated from the original plan. The report of the Advocate Commissioner shows that there was no substantial difference and the modified plan was approved by NABARD. Had the opposite party disbursed the loan amount without delay, the complainant could have receive the full subsidy amount and the inconveniences thereby caused should have been avoided. The amount of subsidy lost is not proved by the complainant. Relying the decision reported above we are of opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party in committing delay in disbursing the loan amount to the complainant. Hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 are bound to pay compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant because of the non disbursement of the loan.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in
open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2017.
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Mrs. Helen Hakkim (Witness)
Ext.A1 - True copy of the letter dated 6.3.2013
Ext.A2 - True copy of the letter dated 16.4.2013
Ext.A3 - True copy of the letter dated 6.5.2013 Subject to objection)
Ext.A4 - True copy of the registered letter dated 11.5.2013
Ext.A5 - True copy of the stage certificate dated 18.3.2013
Ext.A6 - True copy of the receipt
Ext.A7 - True copy of the complaint in OP No.261/2013
Ext.A8 - True copy of the letter dated 6.2.2014
Ext.A9 - True copy of the letter dated 5.6.2014
Ext.A10 - True copy of the registered notice dated 6.6.2014
Ext.A11 - Acknowledgement card
Ext.A12 - True copy of Reminder 2 dated 31.7.2014
Ext.A13 - True copy of letter dated 26.8.2014
Ext.A14 - True copy of the registered letter dated 28.8.2014
Ext.A15 series- Copy of the letter dated 5.2.2015 with 3 documents (Subject to objection)
Ext.A16 - Photo copy of the notice dated 25.2.2016
Ext.A17 - Copy of the intimation given by NABARD dated 2.3.2016
Ext.A18 - Photo copy of the information regarding the sanctioning of the loan subsidy
obtained from the office of the NABARD dated 3.3.2016
CW1 - Adv. Vimala Balakrishnan (Court Witness)
Ext.C1 - Mahazor
Ext.C2 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Babu.V. (Witness)
RW2 - S. Hakkim (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the registered letter dated 20.4.2013 (Subject to objection)
Ext.B2 - Copy of the letter from the complainant to State Bank of India
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
