Date of Filling:      15.12.2015

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  26.06.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT:   THIRU.S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                                 ….PRESIDENT

THIRU:R.BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc.L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.,      …MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.08/2016

Dated this Tuesday the 26^th day of June 2018

Mrs.Norbert Elsey,

W/o.Norbert,

No.182 Mullai Nagar,

Periya Colony, Vadamadurai,

Periya palayam (Via).                                                             …… Complainant.

                                      //Versus//

The Branch Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Periya palayam,

Periyapalayam Town&Post,

Utthukottal Taluk,

Thiruvallur District.                                                                …… Opposite party.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 12.06.2018 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Counsel for the complainant and M/s.K.V.Srinivasan,  Counsel for  the opposite party and upon hearing arguments, and having perused the documents and evidences and written arguments of both sides, this Forum delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.PANDIAN, PRESIDENT. 

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the opposite party for seeking Rs.1,00,000 towards compensation for the mental agony, hardship, strain inconvenience, monetary loss and deficiency of service with cost Rs.5,000/-

2.The brief averments of the complaint is as follows:-

The complainant is well trained in cultivating mushrooms.  The complainant intended to do a private business on her own by cultivating mushroom and approached the opposite party for financial assistance.  The cost of commencing the cultivating process by a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and applied for the loan with the opposite party and they informed the complainant that the loan will be sanctioned. The complainant, in pursuance of the loan agreement done all formalities offered by the opposite party.  The field inspection and the document verification were also completed at the opposite partys end.  The complainant handed over the original sale deed and other documents as security with the opposite party.   The complainant submitted the loan application with her project report.  Then the opposite party demanded quotation for the purchase of the materials.  The complainant submits that this is not a shop to purchase materials directly from whole sale dealers or a company to purchase a machine and to submit a quotation for the same.

3. The complainants project is an agricultural operation.  That to commence with the cultivation, basic work will have to be done and for that the complainant is in need of money.  The complainant states that though the opposite have sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- they have failed and refused to release the same as it will be disbursed only to the dealers on production of the quotation.

4.That the complainant has no option to get any major things from any dealer.  The entire project is depending upon the local filed work and the incidental expenses.  That the opposite partys act amounts to gross deficiency in their service.  The complainant is put to great mental agony and hardship.  If the loan is not disbursed the complainant will be great loss and financial strain.

5.The complainant therefore on 06.02.2015 send a legal notice of the opposite party with a copy to their deputy General manager at Chennai, Though it was duly acknowledge by both, there was no proper explanation or disbursement of the loan already sanctioned.  Therefore, the complainant is constrained to file to this complaint for damage and compensation.

6.The contention of written version of the opposite party is briefly as follows:-

The complainant is not maintainable in law and on facts.  The allegations there in are not true and are denied.  The complainant has not come to court with true fact. It is true that the complainant approached the opposite party, for a loan, for the purpose of cultivation and sale of mushrooms.  The said loan was sanctioned only for cultivation of mushrooms and the money will be disbursed, in stages only, based on her daily requirement and daily collections, routed through the account.  The said loan was sanctioned on18.07.2014 subject to the terms and conditions of the Bank.  That was accepted by the complainant.  As per Annexure D the general terms and conditions, all the payments will be made directly to the dealer through opposite partys cheque or DD and the complainant shall submit, the relevant receipts for the dealer for having delivered good/items.  The amount will be dispersed in stages only based on the complainants daily requirements and daily collections, rooted through the account.  The terms and conditions of sanction were given to her and she accepted the same by returning the duplicate copy to the opposite party.  The complainant not furnished any sale seed as collateral security for the said loan.

7. The complainant insisted to pay the 1^st installment  directly of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  The complainant received the sum, but the supplier informed that she did not place an order evidencing utilization of the said amount for the purpose it was intended.  Post disbursement was carried out and enquires made with the dealer/supplier, (Ammus and co) with whom she has a buy back arrangement.  Incidentally, when opposite party verified the end use of the funds of the first complainant for purchase of seeds, hay bags etc as requested by her, the suppliers informed, that no specific order was placed by the complainant and in fact, the complainant had not contacted the supplier that (entire) week or later.  Now it was found end use of funds disbursed, was not utilized for the purpose of loan sought, and the sum was diverted for other purpose.   Her answers were very evasive and not convincing.

8. The opposite party cannot deviate the procedure.  The opposite party demanded the complainant to submit the invoice, detailing the cost and the quantity of raw materials and other items related to the activity.  The complainant did not comply with the same.  The opposite party further informed the complainant, that the payment will be made directly to the supplier in future and original receipts from the supplier shall be submitted to the opposite party.

9. The complainant has requested by a letter dated 28.07.2014 to express her reply, enabling the opposite party to proceed further.  But the complainant did not comply and did not produce any invoice or voucher or submitted any document as demanded. There is no non-disbursement of loan amount as alleged.

10. The opposite party repeatedly advised her to submit the quotation for her purchase, so that, further disbursements can be made.  However she has not paid attention to the procedure.

11. The complainant continued to maintain the same rigid stand, with total disregard for the opposite partys procedures.  The opposite party repeatedly requested her to submit the quotation/bill/vouchers from her dealer so as to enable for making further disbursements.   However, she has not responded to the opposite partys calls.  Instead, they had made a complaint before the appeal Forum which went against her.  On 23.02.2015 she closed her loan account.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable.

12. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked.   While so, on the side of the opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed and Exhibit B1 to B6 are marked on his side.

13.At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

14. Written arguments filed and oral arguments also adduced by both sides.

15.Point No:1:-

As per the averments of the complaint it is seen that for cultivation of mushroom,  the complainant has approached the opposite party for financial assistance, and in turn,  the opposite party has sanctioned for loan of Rs.2,00,000/-.  It is further seen that the opposite party had sanctioned the loan on complication of the formalities by the complainant.  When the complainant contact the opposite party to release  the loan amount to  the commence basic work on ground, the complainant has failed to produce the quotation from the dealers which leads to deficiency of service of the opposite party and thereby, the complainant suffered  great loss and mantel  agony.  

16. While so, it is learnt from the written version of the opposite party that the loan was sanctioned subject to the terms and conditions of the Bank as per the Annexure D  all payment will be made directly to the dealer by means of cheque  or DD on the production of relevant receipt from the dealers for having deliver of goods and further on insisting of the complainant the opposite party directly release first installment of Rs.10,000/- and infact the same was not utilized for the purpose of loan sought and it is diverted for other purpose and therefore the allegations made in the complaint are not true and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

17. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the evidence adduced on both sides by means of proof Affidavit, it is crystal clear that it is an admitted fact, the complainant has approached the opposite party for financial assistance for doing a project cultivating mushrooms, which is an agricultural operation and on acceptance of the complainant regarding the terms and conditions of the opposite party and on execution of loan agreement the opposite party has sanctioned the loan of Rs.2,00,000/-.  It is further learnt from the evidence that after sanctioning the loan, the opposite party has demanded quotation for the purchase of materials and continues the complainant informed that this is not a shop to purchase materials directly from whole sale dealers of a company to purchase and submit quotation for the same.

18. While being so, on careful perusal of the further evidence, the project of the complainant is marked as Ex.A1 and the estimation report of the particulars supplied applicant for advance  are marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and the sanction for demand loan is marked as Ex.B1 and in receipt of letter of intimation to the complainant is marked as Ex.A2.  In furtherance, on going through the evidence of the complainant it is stated that the opposite party has sanctioned loan of Rs.2,00,000/- but they failed and refused to release the same as it will be disbursed only to the dealer on production of the quotation and in turn the complainant informed the opposite party, the complainant has no option to get any major things from any dealers and the entire projects is depending upon the local field work and the incidental expenses.

19. While being so, it is stated by the opposite in their proof Affidavit that as per the Annexure D the general terms and conditions of the bank all the payments will be made directly to the dealer through bank Cheque of DD and the complainant has submit the relevant receipts for having delivered goods/items and also  the amount will be disbursed in stages only based on the complainant daily requirements and daily collections, rooted through the account and said terms and conditions of sanction were given to the complainant and he accepted the same by returning the duplicate copy to  their Bank . 

20. At the outset, on careful perusal of the Ex.B1, it is crystal clear that the complainant has clearly accepted the terms and conditions and signed in the relevant documents. Moreover on careful perusal of the Ex.A2 which is marked on the side of the complainant Annexure D attached with Ex.A2, clearly reveals the facts that Payment will be made directly to the dealer/s through Bankers Cheque/DD and Borrower to submit the relevant receipts from the Dealer/s for having  delivered goods/items  further it is learned from Ex.A2 Annexure D that  Information/clarification sought by the Bank from time to time  should be replied promptly.

21. From the above terms and conditions it goes without saying that the averments of the opposite party regarding the terms and conditions in respect of a payment of loan amount can be acceptable one. If It is so, the submission placed by the complainant that the could not able to get the quotation since the complainant has not purchased the materials directly from the whole sale dealers or a company to purchase a machine to submit a quotation as required by the opposite party holds not good, because the complainant has clearly accepted to comply the demand of the opposite party, whenever release the loan amount as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure D belong with Ex.A2. 

22. Furthermore, it is clearly seen from the evidence that though the demand of quotation by the opposite party, the complainant insisted for the release of funds as a first installment, the opposite party has released the first payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for purchase of seeds, hay bags etc as requested by her, even no specific order was placed by the complainant and not come forward to produce an either a printed or hand written receipt  for the purchase from the seller or any dealers. The said disbursement of Rs.10,000/- has been proved by the opposite party through Exhibit B6, the statement of account of the complainant which is maintained in the opposite party bank the same said facts his been clearly seen from the Exhibit A5 statement of account filed by the complainant.   Therefore, regarding this said disbursement of Rs.10,000/- has not disputed one, but continently  the complainant has suppressed the fact in the complaint as well as proof Affidavit which clearly shows that the complainant had approached this Forum without clean hands. Hence, the version placed by the opposite party that the complainant has not utilized the funds disbursed by the opposite party for the purpose of the loan sought for and the same was diverted for other purpose and not come forward to clear the same, even requested by the opposite party and thereby the complainant clearly violated terms and conditions of the opposite party bank.

23. It is further seen that though the opposite parties has come forward to comply demand of the complainant in spite of repeated request and calls and instead of made a complaint before the appeal forum which went against her.  The letter of the complainant address to the Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda and the reply sent by the opposite party to the DGM, Chennai are marked as Exhibit B4 and B5 and the legal notice sent by the complainant to the Branch Manager which is marked as Ex.A6 and acknowledgement card are marked as Ex.A7and Ex.A8 respectively.  Furthermore, it is seen that from Ex.A6 subsequently to the disposal of the appeal filed by the complainant against  the  non-disbursement    of loan amount by the opposite party to the DGM, Bank of Baroda, Chennai the above said letter on 23.07.2015 which also seen from Ex.A5.

24. From the fore going among other facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that as per the terms and conditions of the opposite party bank, the complainant has not produced their quotation or invoice for purchase of materials from the third party and also not utilized the fund of Rs10,000/- which was disbursed  by the opposite party as first installment for the purpose of loan sought and in respect of repeated request, the complainant come forward to supply the same which clearly shows that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions.  Furthermore, the appeal prepared by the complainant to the higher office also failed and then only the loan was closed.  Therefore, the claim himself is not maintainable as rightly pointed out by the opposite parties in order to substantiate the above facts,  this Forum wants to relay upon the following decision

2002-3 CPJ25:2003-1  CPR96:2003-1   CLT502-NC , NEW DELHI.

M.P.Minerals Ltd.                                            ………..Appellant

                                            //Versus//

Bank of India and other.                                 …….. Respondent

25. It is held that, the documents which were required to accompany the demand were not sent by the complainant, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Banking service-Bank guarantee-Non- payment of the amount of the bank guarantee-Case of conditional guarantee-Conditions had to be fulfilled as envisaged in the documents of guarantee-Documents which were required to accompany the demand were not sent by the complainant-Bank was within its right to not to honour such demand under the guarantee- Complaint liable to dismissed.

26. In the light of the above facts, circumstances and observations and evidences the complainant has not at all proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint without any reasonable doubt therefore without any hesitation this Forum has come to conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

27.Point No:2

In view of the conclusion arrived in the point No.1 the complainant is not entitled for any relief as pray for in the complaint.  Thus, the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

This order was dictated by the President to the Steno-typist, typed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by us in open Forum, today on this 26^th day of June 2018.

    -Sd-                                                                                      -Sd-

MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

        -Sd-                                                                                                                                     -Sd-

   MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT