Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/436/2013

Mahinder Kumar S/o Chhaju Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director Haryana Khadi and Gramudyog Board - Opp.Party(s)

V.P.Chaudhary

30 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                     Complaint No.436 of 2013.

                                                     Date of institution: 10.06.2013.

                                                     Date of decision: 30.10.2017.

Mahinder Kumar son of Sh. Chhaju Ram, resident of Village Karera Khurd,Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                               …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Managing Director, Haryana Khadi & Gramudyog Board, Bays No.63-66, Sector-2, Panchkula, Haryana.
2. District Officer, Haryana, Khadi & Gramudyog (Village Industries Officer, Yamuna Nagar.
3. The Manager, UCO Bank, Jagadhri-1424, District Yamuna Nagar.
4. Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017.

 

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                   SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:   Sh. V.P.Chaudhary, Advocate, for complainant.   

                None for Ops No.1 & 2.

                Sh. Arjun Setia, Advocate for the OPs.No.3 & 4.

               

                ORDER

         

(SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

                The complainant-Mahinder Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.             Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he applied for loan under P.M.E.G.P. Scheme in the year 2010 to the Haryana Khadi & Gramudyog Board and completed all the required formalities regarding the said loan.  It is alleged that the said Board had granted loan to the complainant for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the loan application of complainant to UCO Bank, Yamuna Nagar vide letter No.8151 dt. 20.10.2010.  It is further alleged that vide letter dt. 29.10.2019, the UCO Bank Yamuna Nagar returned back the loan document to the said Board with the objection that this loan matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of UCO Bank, Branch Yamuna Nagar.  The said loan case was transferred to the UCO Bank Branch, Jagadhri.  It is further alleged that the UCO Bank, Jagadhri had also got deposited a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant as security/earnest money for the loan of Rs.5,00,000/-.  It is further alleged that no receipt of the said amount was given to the complainant by the bank and advised the complainant that all the earnest money and subsidy etc. will be adjusted at the time of making payment of loan to the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the UCO Bank, Jagadhri several times but the bank lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant and to make payment of Rs.35,000/- received by Op No.3 from the complainant on account of security/earnest money and to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss suffered by the complainant and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statements.  Ops No.1 & 2 filed their joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the answering Ops had sanctioned the loan as per rules within time after completion of required formalities and if there is any fault in releasing the loan, the same is of Ops No.3 & 4; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ops No.3 & 4 filed their joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant had applied for loan to the Op No.1 and his application for loan was forwarded by Op No.1 to the answering Op No.3.  The loan application of complainant was considered but rejected on the ground that the project report submitted alongwith loan application is more than two years old and cots and other charges have been charged.  The Op No.1 was informed vide letter dt. 26.02.2013 regarding rejection of loan application.  The complainant also applied for information under Right to Information Act vide letter dt. 21.03.2013 and the information was accordingly supplied vide letter dt. 06.04.2013.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

   

5.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure-CW/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C12 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. 

6.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of Ops No.1 & 2 was close vide order dt. 27.09.2017 of this Forum.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.3 & 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Vijay Kumar Garg, Annexure-RA alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and closed evidence on behalf of Ops.No.3 & 4.

7.             During course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in additional evidence some documents i.e. Annexure C-13 to Annexure C-37 on 13.10.2017 and ld. Counsel for the Ops No.3 & 4 made “no objection” on 13.10.2017 regarding tendering of these documents by ld. Counsel for the complainant.  Similarly, ld. Counsel for the Ops No.3 & 4 also tendered in additional evidence Annexure R-5 to Annexure R-10 on 13.10.2017 and Annexure R-11 on 27.10.2017 and ld. Counsel for the complainant also made “no objection” on tendering of these documents by ld. Counsel for the Ops No.3 & 4.  Hence, these documents have been ordered to be placed on record.       

8.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.                                      

9.             After hearing ld. Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of record available on the file, it has been found that the following two questions have arisen for adjudication of the present complaint:-

a)             Whether the complainant falls under the definition of consumer or not?

b)             Whether there is any deficiency on the part of Ops No.3 & 4 while rejecting the loan application/case of the complainant which had been recommended by Ops No.1 & 2 under the Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme (hereinafter referred to PMEGP)?

a)             Question No.1

                Regarding question No.1, ld. Counsel for complainant has contended that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the UCO Bank, Yamuna Nagar, vide receipt Annexure C-28 issued by UCO Bank Yamuna Nagar.  Ld. Counsel further placed reliance in this regard on Annexure C-31 vide which Rs.35,000/- had allegedly been deposited by the complainant with the Op No.3 i.e. UCO Bank Jagadhri. 

                Ld. counsel for the Ops No.3 & 4 on the other hand contended that the complainant had never deposited any amount with them and that the amount, if any, deposited vide Annexure C-28 had been deposited with UCO Bank, Yamuna Nagar and not with UCO Bank, Jagadhri.  Further, there is no proof that the amount allegedly drawn vide cheque Annexure C-31 from Yamuna Nagar Central Co-operative Bank had been deposited with Op No.3.  Ld. Counsel in support of his contention drew the attention of this Forum towards Annexure R-11 vide which it is clear that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with the UCO Bank, Yamuna Nagar in the account number 14420110003220 and this account is still in operation with the UCO Bank Yamuna Nagar and thus, the contention of complainant that he had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with the UCO Bank, Jagadhri in connection with the loan case is completely false and incorrect.  The counsel further strongly contended that there is no rebuttal on the part of complainant to the contents of reply contained in Annexure R-3 vide which it was clearly stated that no amount of Rs.35,000/- as alleged was ever deposited by the complainant as security or earnest money with the UCO Bank, Jagadhri.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.3 & 4 submitted case law reported in 1992(2) CPJ page 455 (NC) titled as M/s. Noah Industries Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation & another.

                We have thoroughly perused the receipt, Annexures C-28, C-30, C-31 and Annexure R-3 and R-11.  After thorough perusal, it has been found that the complainant did not deposit the amount of Rs.35,000/- as alleged by him with the Op No.3-UCO Bank, Jagadhri.  A perusal of Annexure R-11 makes it crystal clear that the alleged amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by him in the UCO Bank, Yamuna Nagar in the aforementioned account No. 14420110003220 and hence, in the absence of payment of any amount by the complainant with the Op No.3-UCO Bank, Jagadhri in the present loan case the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer and thus, he does not fall under the definition of consumer as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

b)             Question No.2

                Regarding this question, ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had submitted his loan application/case to the Op No.2, who had recommended his case to Op No.3 for the release of Rs.5,00,000/-.  He further contended that the complainant had possessed the necessary qualification for the project and had a plot/building for the same in village Karhera khurd.  In this regard, he drew the attention of this Forum towards the following documents:-

1. Application form-Annexure C-13
2. Estimate-Annexure C-14
3. Project Report Annexure C-15
4. Copy of mutation Annexure C-16
5. Bill, Annexure C-17
6. Quotation, Annexure C-18
7. Certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Annexure C-19
8. OBC Certificate, Annexure C-20
9. Ration Card Annexure C-21        
10. Application to A.D.C., Annexure C-23
11. Letter dt. 08.04.2013 of Op No.3, Annexure C-24
12. Recommendation letter of Op No.3, Annexure C-25
13. Sale deed, Annexure C-33
14. Jamabandi, Annexure C-34
15. Kissan Pass-book, Annexure C-35
16. Project Report, Annexure C-36

               On the basis of afore-mentioned documents, ld. Counsel pleaded that the Op No.3 had wrongly rejected the loan application of the complainant, whereas the same had been recommended by Op No.2.  He further pleaded that the loan application/case was thoroughly scrutinized by the District Task Force Committee in its meeting dt. 07.09.2010 and on the basis of same, the loan application was recommended by Op No.2 to Op No.3.  It is evident from a perusal of Annexure C-25 and thus, it was contended that there is deficiency on the part of Op No.3 while rejecting the loan application of complainant.

                 On the other hand, ld. Counsel for Ops No.3 & 4 strongly refuted the contention of complainant and pleaded that the loan case of complainant was rejected twice by the officials of Op No.3, firstly on 24.03.2011 and thereafter, on 26.02.2013.  It was stated that the project was not found viable, as is clear from the site inspection report, Annexure R-4, which is reproduced as under:-

            “Having no diploma from Authorized Institution of the trade ii) not doing own business iii) No power connection   Domicile/commercial iv) Willful defaulter in the village of our branch”

            Further, as per Annexure R-1, the loan case was rejected on the following grounds:-

“1)        The project report submitted alongwith the application is more than two years old and thus, the data was irrelevant and obsolete.

2)         The proposed site was away from factories/industries and no power connectivity and insufficient availability of job-work.”

                  Apart from above, it was also pleaded that the complainant did not possess the requisite qualification required for the project as Annexure R-9 has not been issued by any qualified/approved company of engineers.  Further, Annexure R-7 makes it clear that the complainant did not possess any building for the proposed project as plot had been mentioned in Annexure R-7.  Lastly, it was argued that it was the bank, who had to assess the viability of the project before the sanctioning of loan, as is clear from Annexure R-6. Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.3 & 4 submitted case law reported in 2012(3) CLT page 414 (NC) titled as Aquadev India Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad & others.

                    After hearing the submissions and arguments of both the sides, it has been found that the complainant had applied to the Op No.2 for the sanctioning of loan to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and the loan case was scrutinized by the District Task Force Committee, Yamuna Nagar in its meeting on 07.09.2010 and on its recommendation, the loan case of complainant was forwarded with recommendation to Op No.3 i.e. UCO Bank, Jagadhri for the release of Rs.5,00,000/- to be utilized by the complainant on the project of manufacturing of parts of machinery.  These facts are clear from the perusal of Annexure R-6.  Now we have to decide and ascertain the fact whether the bank has power to look into and nullify the recommendations made by Op No.2 regarding sanctioning of loan and assess the viability of the project as also the credentials of the loanee-applicant/complainant.  In this regard, a perusal of Annexure R-6 makes it crystal clear that the Op No.3 had every power to look into and examine the recommendations made by Op No.2 independently and further Op No.3 is empowered to assess the technical project report and credentials of the applicant and on its satisfaction only, the loan could be released.  We have also found that the complainant has not submitted any such document which could falsify the remarks/observations of inspection committee, which have been mentioned in Annexure R-4.  Further, the case of complainant has been rejected twice by the officials of Op No.3, firstly on 24.03.2011 and thereafter on 26.02.2013, as is clear from perusal of Annexure C-24.  The authorities submitted by ld. Counsel for the Ops No.3 & 4 are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint of complainant and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dated: 30.10.2017.

                                                           (SATPAL)

                                                          PRESIDENT.

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                          MEMBER