Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/28/2012

Kalunayaka - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.B.N.R.

02 Jan 2013

ORDER

ORDER

1. C.C.28/2012 and C.C.29/2012 are taken together as common question of  law and facts are involved in both the cases.

 

1. Both the cases have been  field by different complainants by alleging deficiency of service against the O.Ps.

 

1. The complainants have stated that they have no irrigation facilities to their lands. In order to borrow  loan for providing irrigation  facilities to their lands they met one Siddappaji of Kollegala Tq. who in turn promised them to get necessary loan in order to provide irrigation facilities to  their lands.

 

1. The complainants borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- respectively  from H.D.F.C. bank, Saraswathipuram branch, Mysore. The bank has asked them to repay the total amount which had been borrowed by them. The were also not provided irrigation facilities  as promised. They have also filed complaint against said Siddappaji and others at Gundlupet Police Station. They have stated that the attachment of amount by the O.P.2 is deficiency of service to them.

 

1. The O.P.1 has filed version by  denying allegations made against it and the Tahasildhar. It has stated that the O.P.1 has  sanctioned loan to the complainants under the bank Kisan Gold Card Scheme. The  complainant’s in both the cases have borrowed loan and they becomes defaulters for repayment of the same. The A.R.C.S. passed necessary order for non-repayment of the loan in KACOMP 79/2010-11 and in KACOMP 82/2010-11. The complainants are not consumers and the complaint is not maintainable.

 

1. The following points arises for consideration.
   1. Whether the complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum is not maintainable? If, so,
   2. Whether the complainant have shown  deficiency of service by the O.Ps.?
   3. To what order the parties are entitled?

 

1.  The finding on the above points are that

        1.Point No.1: Affirmative.

        2.Point No.2 & 3: Does not arise.

 

                                                                    REASONS

1. POINT NO.1: The complaints filed in both the cases  as well as version  it becomes clear that the complainant’s in both the case  have borrowed loan from HDFC bank under Kisan Gold Card Scheme for irrigation facility and due to non-repayment of the same A.R.C.S. proceedings initiated by the O.P. which has resulted in passing of the order against the complainants’  which has been sought to be  executed by the O.P.1 through O.P.2.

 

1. The complainants say that non furnishing of the irrigation materials by the O.P. there is deficiency of service and O.P.2 has sought to execute orders in respect of the land owners  by  both of them. It also been said that one Siddappaji  connived with the O.Ps and misuse the confidence given by him and in respect of the same the complainants have filed complaint before Gundlupet Police Station.

 

1. The relief sought by the complainants is  ignoring of  orders passed by the O.P.2 and A.R.C.S.

 

1. It becomes clear from the  above  allegations that the complainants does not come within the definition of the consumers under section 2(1)(d) of  Consumer Protection Act and there is no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant from the O.P. and the complaints brought before this Forum is not maintainable  and reliefs if any  elsewhere  and hence the point no.1 is held in the affirmative.

 

1. Point No.2 & 3: In view of holding point No.1 in the affirmative point no.2 & 3  does not arise for consideration.

 

1. In view of the above findings following

 

ORDER

1. The complaints are dismissed as not  maintainable before this Forum.

2. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.