COMPLAINT FILED ON: 25.05.2009
DISPOSED ON: 22.03.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
DATED THIS THE 22ND MARCH – 2011
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1182/2009
Complainant | Sri. D. Thyagaraju, S/o Dasappa, Aged about 63 years, R/at E-Thimmasandra Vilalge, Sadali Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Chickballapur District. Advocate: Sri. A. Shivaram V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. ICICI Bank Limited Empire Complex, # 414, Senapathy Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013, India. 2. ICICI Bank Limited, Farm Loan Department, No.29, Prestige Meridian, M.G. Road, Bangalore. Also at ICICI Bank Ltd., Farm Equipment Division, ICICI Bank Towers, 2nd Floor, West Wing, No.1 Commissariat Road, Bangalore – 560 025. Advocate: Sri. Mahabaleshwar & Others |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of CP Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to disburse the loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant, failing which to revoke the form of declaration made by the complainant in favour of OPs in respect of property bearing survey No.208/P1, to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and cost of Rs.10,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
2. The case of the complainant is to be stated in brief is that:
The complainant received letter dated 15.02.2007 from OP-1 intimating that he has to pay Rs.3,703/- and Rs.19,125/- towards the loan account No.LFKLR00008949162 and No.LFKLR00008949095 respectively towards the product of Tractor HP for equipment and 1035 Farm equipments respectively. It is stated that complainant has not received any loan amount from OPs for purchasing tractor and other farm equipments and he has not seen the OPs branch or met any of representative in this regard. One Mr. Venkata Reddy introduced himself as an agent of OPs and promised to get the loan from OPs to purchase the tractor and other equipments and took the complainant to the Sub-registrar at Sidlaghatta and got him sign the Form of declaration in Form – 3 in respect to his property bearing survey No.208/P1 in favour of ICICI Bank Limited towards loan of Rs.4,50,000/- to be sanctioned by OPs towards purchase of tractor and other farm equipments. The said Form of declaration was registered before the Sub-registrar, Sidlaghatta. At the time of registration the said Mr. Venkata Reddy made the complainant to sign on several blank papers and documents promising that it is required to get the loan from the OPs. The complainant contacted said Mr. Venkata Reddy several times and he promised that the loan will be sanctioned soon, but after sometime he started avoiding the complainant. The complainant assumed that he was not able to get the loan sanctioned from OPs. After receipt of the notice from OP-1, the complainant suspects that the said Mr. Venkata Reddy must have fraudulently availed loan from the OP without his knowledge, by misusing Form of declaration given by him. In this regard the complainant has also filed a police complaint against the said Mr. Venkata Reddy and also against the OPs. The complainant through his advocate contacted OP-2 to find out how the said loan has been taken in his name. In this regard his advocate met one Mr. Rudra Murthy who is in-charge of Farm equipments loan section at the office of OP-2 and the said Rudra Murthy promised to look into matter and furnish the details regarding the loan. Till date the complainant or his advocate not got any information from the said Rudra Murthy. OPs have not given any loan to the complainant and he has not signed any of the loan papers in this regard. OPs failed to furnish the details in respect of the alleged loan sanctioned by them to the complainant. Legal notice was issued to the OPs calling upon them to revoke the Form of declaration, OPs have not replied for the said notice. The action of OPs in sending the notice for payment towards the alleged loan sanctioned to him without sanctioning the loan and not disbursing the loan, amounts to gross deficiency and negligence in service. Hence the complaint.
3. On appearance, OPs filed version contending that the complaint filed by the complainant is misconceived, false and frivolous, the complainant has failed to set out any grounds for grant of any relief, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The complainant has to file suit for recovery of the amount as claimed. The complainant has specifically alleged that one Mr. Venkata Reddy approached him got his signatures on certain papers and complainant accompanied the said Venkata Reddy to the office of the Sub-registrar and registered declaration in Form – 3. Now after enjoying the loan amount and becoming a defaulter and receiving the demand notice, the complainant realize that the papers signed by him have been misused by Mr. Venkata Reddy. The complainant had failed to take action against said Venkata Reddy. The complainant never visited the office of OPs to see the records maintained. In the event of complainant not getting the loan he should have visited the OPs office and brought it to the notice of OPs. The amount sanctioned was released to the dealer to the account of the complainant. Hence it is the duty of the dealer to verify the identity of a person to release the tractor. The dealer was not made as a party. There is no deficiency of service committed by OPs. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Both the parties filed affidavit evidence and produced documents and written arguments were also filed.
5. During the pendancy of the proceedings; the learned counsel for the complainant filed memo on 07.04.2010 stating that in view of the admission made by the OP that the loan standing in the name of complainant is entirely cleared, the complainant has requested OPs to furnish the loan Clearance Certificate and no Objection Certificate for revocation of the Mortgage, as the said Certificates are required to submit before the Sub-registrar for revocation of the Mortgage. Hence it is prayed to direct the OP to furnish the said certificates.
6. On 28.07.2010 the complainant filed memo stating that as per the direction given by this Forum OP was pleased to execute the cancellation of Mortgage deed on 14.07.2010 before the Sub-registrar at Sidlaghatta. OPs have furnished only photocopy of the No Due Certificate dated 17.06.2010 regarding the clearance of the alleged loan amount. OPs to be directed to furnish the original No Due Certificate to complainant. Further OPs have not furnished the copies of RC book standing in the name of the complainant in respect of the tractor. Hence OPs are to be directed to furnish the copy of the RC book so that the complainant can take action to cancel the registration of the tractor in his name. The complainant had to undergo lots of hardship, mental agony, stress and also loss of money for the negligence and deficiency of service. Hence it is prayed to grant compensation and costs of complaint.
7. OPs filed objection to the above memo contending that no orders can be passed on the memo. The NOC in original is produced before this Forum. RC book in original is not collected by OPs. More over the said document is an essential document required while driving the vehicle, which is required to be collected from the dealer by the person who takes the delivery. At no point of time, the said RC book came to the custody of the OP. The mortgage created by the complainant in favour of the OP towards the loan availed is cancelled, the creation of mortgage clearly shows the complainant himself either had taken the vehicle or permitted some third parties to use the same. Hence it is prayed to reject the memo.
8. Arguments heard on both sides. Points for consideration are:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the
deficiency in service on the part of
the OPs?
Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for
the reliefs claimed?
Point No.3:- What Order?
9. We record our findings on the above points:
Point No.1:- Negative.
Point No.2:- Negative.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
10. After going through the complaint averments and affidavit evidence of the complainant, it becomes clear that the main allegation of the complainant is against one Venkata Reddy who is the cause for making the complainant to execute document declaration Form – 3 in respect of his property bearing survey No.208/P1 towards loan of Rs.4,50,000/- to be sanctioned by OPs for the purpose of purchasing tractor and other farm equipments. When a fraud is alleged against the said Venkata Reddy and he is not made party to the proceedings, evidence is required to be recorded, to adjudicate the matter to prove the fraud. In the absence of the said Venkata Reddy as a party to the proceedings, no finding could be recorded regarding the fraud said to have been played by the said person. Therefore the complaint filed in the present form without making the person (Venkata Reddy) who played a fraud, is not maintainable. The complainant has not produced any material to show that a police complaint has been lodged against the said Venkata Reddy.
11. The grievances of the complainant is, the action of the OPs in sending the notice for payment towards alleged loan sanctioned to him without sanctioning the loan and not disbursing the same amounts to deficiency in service. It may be noted that during the pendency of the proceedings entire loan has been cleared and OPs have issued No Due Certificate. The original No Due Certificate is available in the records; the complainant can collect the same. OPs have also executed deed canceling the mortgage created by the complainant towards the loan availed. The execution of declaration Form – 3 creation of mortgage of survey No.208/P1 clearly goes to show that the complainant is well aware of the loan sanctioned by OPs and the loan has been disbursed directly to the dealer of the tractor and farm equipments. OPs cannot be directed to furnish copy of the RC of the tractor; the complainant can approach the concerned RTO for obtaining the copy of the RC and take necessary steps to get the RC cancelled if he has not purchased the tractor by availing loan from OPs. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as such he is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed. The complaint is devoid of merits. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd day of March – 2011.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Snm:
