IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) O.P. No. 50/2002 (Filed on 11.03.2002) BetweenGeorgekutty Abraham, 53 years, Vadakkethalackal Veedu, Kumbanad P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta. .... Complainant. And: 1. State Bank of Travancore Kumbanad- Branch represented by its Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Kumbanad Branch, Kumbanad P.O. 2. Field Officer, SBT Kumbanad Branch, Kumbanad. (By Adv. Alex. P. Chacko) .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The fact of the case in brief is as follows: The complainant is an account holder of the first opposite party. For the last so many years, the complainant has been dealing with the first opposite party. He maintained S.B. Account No.175748 with the first opposite party. The first opposite party without the consent and knowledge of complainant fraudulently transfers from the said account Rs.1,000/- on 04.09.2001 and Rs.500/- on 22.10.2001 to his ATL 31806 & ACC 17 loan accounts. Though the first opposite party is bound to follow the bonafide banker-customer relationship, the said act is totally unjust. The complainant came to know this act only when he approaches the first opposite party for withdrawing money for his homely affairs. The act of the first opposite party causes both financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, the first opposite party is liable to return the said amount with 15% interest. The first opposite party aught to have inform the transfer of money from complainant’s account. When complainant enquired about the matter, the first opposite party behaved with abusive and defiance manner. 3. For agricultural purpose, first opposite party issued Kissan Credit Card Account No.3 on 02.01.2001 and sanctioned Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. A pass book also issued for the purpose. But on enquiry, complainant revealed that such an account does not exist. All the transactions were done as per old account No.ACC 17. 4. As a Kissan Credit Card holder, complainant approached the first opposite party for agricultural loan. At that time, he has to face so many difficulties. First opposite party demanded tax receipt and possession certificate of his property. He approached several time but first opposite party ridiculed and sent him back. Therefore, he was not in a position to cultivate crops. Again complainant applied for short-term agricultural loan, but first opposite party has not sanctioned it. Hence he cannot continue further cultivation and at last given up the cultivation. All this causes a loss of Rs.15,000/- to him. 5. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are not willing to grant any type of loan to the complainant, even though he approached several time. When he approached for the purpose of education loan for his son, the first and second opposite parties do not grant it. At last he got loan from Indian Oversees Bank, Kumbanad for an amount of Rs.1,65,000/-, for which he has to pay more than Rs.1,000/- as interest per month. As a lower income family, complainant finds it difficult to control the home budget due to the said burden. 6. Complainant has availed a loan for purchasing a cow on 01.12.1999 from ATL Account NJo.31806 and insured it and deposited the insurance document. The said cow has become ill and handicapped. The first opposite party has not returned the insurance certificate, thereby complainant lost Rs.7,500/- as treatment expense from the insurance company. The said incident happened in between the period from 01.05.2001 to 04.05.2001. The opposite parties are liable to pay the said amount to the complainant. 7. For complainant’s daughter’s wedding, he sold his cow to one Thankamma. The said Thankamma has raised the fund from opposite party’s bank as loan. The opposite parties delayed the payment; thereby the complainant got the price of cow only after a period of 2 days, which caused hardship to him. The complainant has pledged gold ornaments to first opposite party several time by not incurring handling charges. But on 09.11.2000 in gold loan account No.431/2000, first opposite party charged higher interest of Rs.91 and handling charge of Rs.113. The first opposite party realised Rs.26/- as notice charge. Moreover, by the head named “ agricultural farm visit and cattle unit visit” they charged Rs.300/-. The said 2 amounts were charged illegally. Therefore, the same has to be realised from first and second opposite parties. 8. If any modification in opposite parties dealings, it is the moral responsibility of them to inform the same to the customer. The opposite parties willfully not followed the above norms in complainant’s case. It caused both financial and mental loss to the complainant. The first opposite party flout the banker-customer bonafide relationship and thereby committed dereliction of duty, which also caused humiliation, disrespect and loss. Hence this complaint for getting compensation as stated in the complaint. 9. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not sustainable either in law or on facts. Opposite parties admit that an amount of Rs.1,500/- was debited on 2 occasions from complainant’s S.B. Account No.175748. The said amounts were due to the first opposite party from the complainant. ATL No.31806 and ACC No.17 of the bank. The complainant had specifically authorised the first opposite party to “apply towards the outstanding loans any moneys in the banks hand belonging to the borrower” as envisaged in the agreement of hypothecation executed by him. The amounts so debited from the complainant’s S.B. Account were duly credited in his said loan account also. Hence the said allegation of such debits were not authorised by him does not warrant any consideration and there is no deficiency of service on first opposite party in the above regard. The first opposite party has not misbehaved to the complainant. It was the complainant who persistently shouted and misbehaved at the bank’s branch office. According to opposite parties, Kissan Credit Card Account is a financing scheme where by the agriculturists are extended agriculture credit facility. The said accounts are liable to review every year by the bank for proper necessary enhancement, such review is based on the quantum nature of transaction in such accounts for ascertaining the viability. 10. In this case, complainant’s account was not operated during the period 02.01.2001 to 24.12.2001. Therefore, the said account of the complainant was found unviable by the first opposite party and consequently closed. The said action was purely on objective analysis and had no personal motives involved as wrongly alleged. The granting or refusal of loan is the sale discretion of the first opposite party and it is not liable to any damages. As such till a loan facility is allowed, no privity exists between the proposed loanee and the bank. Such person is not a consumer as deferred in the Consumer Protection Act. There is no separate credit vouchers for ACC and KCC accounts. The remittance vouchers for all the transaction in ACC account were drawn by the complainant himself. The first opposite party is yet to receive an application on educational loan to the complainant’s son. Therefore, the allegation of rejecting the educational loan is baseless and unfounded. 11. Opposite parties denied that complainant availed a loan from the first opposite party on 01.02.1999 for purchasing a cow. No such loan facility was extended by the bank to the complainant. The opposite parties failed to return the insurance certificate is also denied. No cow loan was extended to the complainant by the first opposite party and the withholding insurance certificate and consequent damages are also baseless and concocted. The complainant do not have any privity of contract with the first opposite party in connection with the loan availed by Smt. Thankamma. There is no willful delay or negligence in sanctioning or processing the said loan in favour of Smt. Thankamma. Though the loan was availed by the said Thankamma for purchasing a cow from the complainant, in the post sanction inspection. It was revealed that no such sale transactions in fact took place. 12. Handling charges and inspection charges were made in total adherence to the relevant rules and regulations in force. The complainant himself had authorised the first opposite party to levy such charges from him as per the agreement-dated 22.01.1999 executed by him. None of the above transactions had the complainant suffered any damages or deficiency of service. The above complainants were already filed before the Banking Ombudsman, which were after enquiry duly dismissed. This complaint is also totally experimental and vexatious in nature. Therefore, opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint. 13. Based on the version of opposite parties, complainant filed a replication stating that as per the recommendation of Sainik Welfare Officer for Self Employment Scheme sanctioned Rs.50,000/- for cattle rearing. Complainant accepted on initial expenditure of Rs.2,400/- on 22.01.1999 from first opposite party. On 16.02.1999 for purchasing a cow received Rs.6,000/-. The said loan, complainant regularly made repayment. On 15.07.1999 the said cow died. The death certificate and post mortem certificate of the cow was attested by the Field Officer of first opposite party. The said documents were forwarded by first opposite party to the office of United India Insurance Company, Pathanamthitta for getting insurance amount. When the insurance amount was delayed, complainant approached the insurance company and revealed that the insurance amount of Rs.8,000/- had sent to first opposite party. But the opposite party has not credited the said amount to loan account. When he enquired, first opposite party replied that it is not possible to close the account by credit balance in ATL account. 14. The first opposite party has not credited the insurance amount to complainant’s S.B. Account. It is revealed from the Ombudsman that first opposite party fabricated document showing that complainant had withdrawn Rs.8,000/- on 29.11.1999 from S.B. Account. But in fact first opposite has not credited the said amount. When the amount has not been paid to complainant, he approached the auditors to get the amount. The auditors directed the first and second opposite parties to use the insured amount for the purchase of a cow and he insured it and the document of the same be kept in the bank. The auditors also cleared that the said amount is for the livelihood and self-employment of the complainant. 15. As per the direction, complainant purchased a cow and submitted the documents on 29.11.1999 to first opposite party’s bank and they released Rs.8,000/- to him. On 26.04.2001 to 01.05.2001 the said cow was under treatment. But the first opposite party has not given the insurance details to him. Therefore, he lost Rs.7,500/- as insurance amount for treatment. 16. Though complainant demanded another cattle loan but first opposite party denied stating that they already allowed 2 cattle unit loan. Further loan is not allowable. Though he informed that one cow had died, they refused to grant loan. This matter was also informed to Sainik Welfare Officer. But no response from them also. 17. Complainant has 2 different loan accounts with first opposite party. ACC 17 has opened on 13.11.1997. He has availed a number of loans and repaid it through ACC 17. He has also executed an agreement in a stamp paper of Rs.50/- on 09.11.2000. The credit balance in the said account was Rs.5/-. The second opposite party on 22.10.2001 transferred Rs.500/- from S.B. Account without complainant’s consent or knowledge to ACC 17 by false and fraudulent way. The second opposite party credited the said amount in KCC 3 account not in ACC 17 account. When he pointed out the error, first opposite party made change on the front page of KCC 3 by writing as ACC 17. Further transactions were done by promising to offer loans. The repayment of loan amount had done by complainant from other individuals who imposed higher rate of interest. On 02.01.2001, KCC 3 account has started by complainant and executed an agreement in a stamp paper of Rs.50/-. He also signed the voucher on 24.12.2001 without ascertaining and confirming either ACC 17 or KCC 3. The voucher dated 21.01.2002 has raised by the complainant himself in which first opposite party written Rs.2,606/- instead of Rs.2,610/-. 18. The first opposite party filed additional version based on the complainant’s replication stating that in Consumer Protection Act, there is no provision for replication. Moreover, the opposite parties had not preferred any counter claim for the replication. Complainant did not amend complaint despite several opportunities for the same. Hence he cannot raise new allegations against the opposite parties by filing replication. 19. According to first opposite party, the credit facility under ATL 31806 was not in any way related to Sainik Welfare Self Employment Scheme. No amount has disbursed to the complainant by the first opposite party under Sainik Welfare Self Employment Scheme. The insurance amount received for the death of complainant’s cow was credited to his S.B. account. The said amount was subsequently withdrawn from his S.B. account. There is no delay or negligence on their part in disbursing the insurance amount. Complainant never purchased any other cow by availing credit facility from the first opposite party. Hence the opposite parties are not liable for any loss sustained to him. 20. Amount credited in the ACC and ATL accounts of the complainant by debiting his S.B. account were with due authorisation, consent and knowledge of the complainant. The opposite parties had never committed any fraud or forgery. The opposite parties had never coaxed the complainant to have any transaction. All transactions with the opposite parties were made by the complainant on his own volition. The opposite parties had not caused any loss to the complainant. The opposite parties had only collected amounts legally due from the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 21. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Reliefs and Cost? 22. The evidence of the complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A18. The evidence of the opposite parties consists of the proof affidavit filed by the first opposite party who has been examined as DW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B5. After closure of the evidence, both parties were heard. 23. Point Nos. 1 to 3: In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A17. Ext.A1 is the loan sanction letter dated 22.01.1999 issued by District Sainik Welfare Office, Pathanamthitta. Ext.A2 is the copy of the statement of account from 02.07.1999 to 02.02.2000 of the complainant’s S.B. account No.175748. Ext.A3 series are the copies of relevant pages of loan account No.ATL 31806 issued by the first opposite party. Ext.A4 is the copy of Kissan Credit Card-cum-pass book (KCC) No.3 issued on 09.11.2000 by first opposite party. Ext.A5 is the copy of agreement for the education loan of his son executed by the complainant and the Indian Oversees Bank. Ext.A6 is the copy of letter-dated 20.2.2002 from the office of the Banking Ombudsman. Ext.A7 is the copy of treatment details of complainant’s cow. Ext.A8 is the copy of letter informing the interest subsidy of Rs.1,920/- issued by Directorate of Sainik Welfare. Ext.A9 is the copy of letter from Directorate of Sainik Welfare informing that interest subsidy of Rs.1,920/- is not allowable. Ext.A10 is the copy of letter from Sainik Welfare Officer, Pathanamthitta recommending to pay interest subsidy of Rs.1,920/-. Ext.A11 is the copy of letter recommending interest subsidy in ATL 31806 account to Sainik Welfare Officer, Pathanamthitta by first opposite party. Ext.A12 is the copy of letter from Sainik Welfare Officer directing the spot verification report and for correcting the date as 21.12.2001 instead of 24.12.2001. Ext.A13 is another letter from Sainik Welfare Officer, Pathanamthitta informing in connection with the grant of subsidy for the loan. Ext.A14 is the copy of Thankamma’s loan account ATL No.4199. Ext.A15 is the copy of marriage certificate of complainant’s daughter. Ext.A16 is the copy of account statement of AGL 31/2000 issued by first opposite party. Ext.A17 series are the copies of registration cards of National Employment Exchange and Sainik Welfare Department. Ext.A18 is the Original of Ext.14 Pass Book of one Thankamma. 24. In order to prove the opposite parties’ contention, first opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B5. Ext.B1 is the agreement of hypothecation between the complainant and the first opposite party for the loan amount of Rs.14,400/- dated 22.01.1999. Ext.B2 is the agreement of hypothecation dated 13.11.1997 between the complainant and opposite parties for a loan amount of Rs.10,000/-. Ext.B3 is the application form and terms and conditions of SBT Kissan Credit Card. Ext.B4 is the hypothecation agreement dated 02.01.2001 between the complainant and opposite parties for an amount of Rs.25,000/-. Ext.B5 is the copy of statement of account of Account No.ACC 17 from 01.01.1996 to 01.02.2002. 25. On the basis of the contention and averment of the parties, we have gone through the entire materials on record. The complainant’s case is that he was a customer of opposite parties for the last so many years. But he was ill treated by denying just lawful claims. Opposite parties’ contention is that they have not denied any benefit or any form of ill-treatment. They had acted on lawfully in all dealings. Complainant also executed agreement for that purpose. 26. In the version, opposite parties had made a flat denial of cow loan extended to the complainant. This and other fact may compel the complainant for further clarifications. For that he filed replication. The first opposite party filed additional version based on replication. In these circumstances, for the interest of justice, we are constrained to consider the contention in the replication as part of the complaint also in the light of the fact that the complainant himself is contesting his case. 27. One of the grievances of the complainant is that, he has not authorised the first opposite party to transfer any amount from his S.B. account. According to him, first opposite party by false and fraudulent means without his consent transferred Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- from his S.B. account to ATL and ACC account respectively. Opposite parties denied the contention by stating that complainant duly authorised to transfer as per agreement of hypothecation executed by him. But evidence does not reveal that complainant is a chronic defaulter. Opposite parties have not made a contention that the complainant’s loan account is either running irregular/overdue or he is a regular defaulter. Opposite parties failed to prove that such and such situation warrants them to transfer the said amounts from complainant’s account. Moreover, Ext.B3 shows that there are 11 terms and conditions in printed form. The hand written part in addition to the above printed terms and condition seem to be a fabricated one. It is not compatible with the printed 11 terms and condition and it was not authenticated by the complainant also. Therefore, the hand written part is added only for the justification of their illegal transfer. 28. Another grievance is that opposite parties delayed in disbursing the insurance amount of complainant’s cow, which died after availed loan. Complainant’s case is that the said cow loan is a self-employment scheme. But opposite parties’ contention is that the said loan is not a self-employment scheme. On a perusal of Ext.A1, it is revealed that the said loan is a self-employment scheme, sanctioned by Sainik Welfare Officer, Pathanamthitta. Complainant came to know from insurance office that an amount of Rs.8,000/- has sent to first opposite party’s office. But first opposite party neither credited the said amount to loan account nor to S.B. account. Though the said amount was received by the complainant, he has not informed the date on which the first opposite party received the amount from insurance company. According to complainant, first opposite party willfully delayed the payment of insurance amount as a part of their ill treatment. So long as the allegation persists, it is the boundan duty of opposite parties to disclose the date of receiving the insurance amount from insurance company by producing the relevant records. Even though complainant filed I.A. 63/08 to produce the statement of account of his S.B. account No.175748 from 10.07.1999 to March 2001, the same has not yet produced by opposite parties before the Forum. Non-production of the said records, the adverse inference goes in favour of complainant. Therefore, it is presumed that first opposite party delayed the payment of insurance amount to complainant, that is why they did not produce the statement of account. 29. Another aspect is the denial of interest subsidy of Rs.1,920/- to the complainant. Ext.A8 and A11 show that the complainant is entitled to get the interest subsidy. Ext.A10 shows that District Sainik Welfare Officer recommended to pay the interest subsidy to the complainant. But first opposite party relied on Ext.A9 letter, which is dated 10.06,2002 and not acted upon Ext.A10 letter dated 12.06.2002. Based on Ext.A10, first opposite party ought to have write for further clarification, if any. Therefore, the action of first opposite party i.e. denial of interest subsidy is premature, which may cause distress and mental agony to complainant. 30. Complainant also pointed out the errors and omissions in Ext.B5 statement of account. In Page No.1 of Ext.B5, the entry of 09.11.1999 the debit amount is Rs.9,995/-. On 02.05.2000 deposited an amount of Rs.2,000/-. The balance is seen as 8,604/-. In actual calculation i.e. Rs.9995/- - Rs.2000/- = Rs.7,995. The difference amount is Rs.609/-. According to complainant, the opposite parties are bound to answer this type of errors. 31. Though the complainant has a lot of other grievances regarding he denial of fresh agricultural short term loan, denial of insurance benefit for his cow’s treatment expense, denial of loan facility for purchasing a cow after the repayment of cow loan, delay in payment of the price of cow to one Thankamma, which was sold by complainant, excessive and illegal charges of opposite parties in gold loan, inspection charge, notice charge etc. Regarding the above allegations, there is no positive evidence to prove it. Therefore, the said allegations are not allowable even though there may have some elements of truth. 32. On a perusal of Ext.A17 and A17(a) it is revealed that the complainant is an unemployed Ex-service man. The rehabilitation of Ex-service man who done valuable service to the nation is an obligation of the Government. Any disrespect or neglect on these persons is to be treated as disregard to the nation. Government through Sainik Welfare board introduced various measures including bank’s aid, subsidies etc. for their well-being. In this case also, Sainik Welfare Directorate recommended the complainant’s name for financial aid to opposite parties’ bank. But opposite parties ill-treated inhumanly by denying interest subsidy, transfer of Rs.1,500/- from his S.B. account without consent, delaying the insurance amount of Rs.8,000/- errors and omissions in his account, which shakes the conscience of ours. This act of opposite parties is illegal, irrational and against the spirit of consumer justice, it is a clear deficiency of service. Therefore, complaint is maintainable and partly allowable with compensation and cost. 33. In the result, complaint is partly allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation with a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only). The amount so awarded is to be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the said amount will follow 10% interest per annum from this date till the realisation of the whole amount. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of June, 2010. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : George Kutty Abraham Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Loan sanction letter issued by District Sainik Welfare Office, Pathanamthitta to the complainant. A2 : Photocopy of the Pass Book (account No.175748). A3, A3(a) & A3(b) : Photocopies of relevant pages of loan account No.ATL 31806 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A4 : Photocopy of Kissan Credit Card-cum-pass book (KCC) No.3 issued by first opposite party to the complainant. A5 : Photocopy of agreement executed by the complainant and the Indian Oversees Bank. A6 : Copy of letter dated 20.02.2002 issued by Dy. Secretary Banking Ombudsman, Thiruvananthapuram to the complainant. A7 : Photocopy of emergency case register. A8 : Photocopy of letter dated 30.1.2002 issued by Directorate of Sainik Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram to the complainant. A9 : Photocopy of letter dated 10.6.2002 issued by the Directorate of Sainik Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram to the complainant. A10 : Photocopy of letter dated 12.6.2002 from Zila Sainik Welfare Officer, Pathanamthitta to the complainant. A11 : Photocopy of the spot verification report in respect of ATL 31806. A12 : Photocopy of letter dated 23.4.2002 issued by Zila Sainik Welfare Officer, Pathanamthitta to the complainant. A13 : Photocopy of letter dated 15.5.2002 issued by Zila Sainik Welfare Officer, Pathanamthitta to the complainant. A14 : Photocopy of the MT/Demand Loan Pass Book in respect of C.N. Thankamma. A15 : Photocopy of marriage certificate dated 28.1.2002 issued by Rev. Y. Muthu Rajan, Christ Lutheran Church, Vadasery, Nagarcovil. A16 : Photocopy of account statement of AGL 31/2000 issued by first opposite party. A17 : Photocopy of the Employment Registration Card of the complainant. A17(a): Photocopy of the Identity Card issued by Zila Sainika Welfare Officer, Pathanamthitta. A18 : Original of Ext.A14 Pass Book. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Baby Thomas Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Agreement of hypothecation between the complainant and the first opposite party. B2 : Agreement of hypothecation dated 13.11.1997 between the complainant and opposite parties for a loan amount of Rs.10,000/-. B3 : Application form and terms and conditions letter dated 2.01.2001 of SBT Kissan Credit Card. B4 : Agreement of hypothecation dated 02.01.2001 between the complainant and opposite parties for an amount of Rs.25,000/-. B5 : Photocopy of statement of account of Account No.ACC 17 from 01.01.1996 to 01.02.2002. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Georgekutty Abraham, Vadakkethalackal Veedu, Kumbanad P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta. (2) Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Kumbanad Branch, Kumbanad P.O. (3) Field Officer, SBT Kumbanad Branch, Kumbanad. (4) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
