::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.23/2017.
Date of filing: 01.04.2017.
Date of disposal: 30.06.2018.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Ganpathrao S/o Kashappa Khuba,
Age:81 years, Occ: Advocacy Agriculture,
R/o Jai Prakash Nagar, Bidar.
( By Sri.Sanjaykumar S.Patil., Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) M/s Sharda Industries, Sharda Complex,
near Khadi Bhandar, Bidar, represented by its
proprietor Sri.Jainth Kumar S/o Late Narsingrao
Bemalkhedkar.
2) Mr. Sitaram Das, The then Manager Punjab
National Bank Br.Bidar, now working at its
Kukatpally Banch Hyderabad.
3) The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bak
Branch, Janwada Road, Bidar.
(By. R2, R3-Sri.Mansoor Ahmed Khan., Adv.
R1, Exparte.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service against the opponents. The gist of the complaint is as hereunder.
2. The complainant avers, he is an Advocate and traditional agriculturist by profession and possesses agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 39, measuring Ac.3.01 guntas in Islampur village, Bidar Taluk, Bidar District. The land is situated on the bank of Manjra river and the complainant had made provisions for irrigation by lifting water from the river as well as the bore well drilled in the field. Due to frequent load shedding and power supply in non-optimum level, he was contemplating alternative power generation. The O.P.No.1, son of his Advocate friend deals with solar power plants and coming to know his plans, approached the former, canvassed him about the central Governments’ Scheme of installing Solar Photovoltaic power generation and pumping systems, coupled with subsidy by the government. The ratio of financing was 40% by the Government, 40% by bank loan and 20% contribution by the agriculturist concerned. Believing in the deliberations of O.P.No.1 of getting cost free power for agricultural operations, the complainant agreed for the same. As the complainant maintains bank a/c with O.P.No.3, he was impressed upon to appear in the bank. The O.P.No.2 was Manager at that time. The complainant reached the bank at about 4p.m. on 30.03.2015. By that time O.P.No.1 was present with O.P.No.2. The later caused the complainant signing various loan documents and proclaimed about the loan sanctioned, even congratulated the customer and left the bank as the banking hour was over.
3. The complainant further avers that, on the next day i.e.31.03.2015 itself, the O.P.No.2 sent the sanctioned amount of Rs.5,40,000/- to the O.P.No.1 by deducting 20% contribution amount from his account.
4. It is further in his averments that, the O.P.NO.1 assured him of installing the Solar photovoltaic the next day and relying on such assurances, the complainant got the electrical pump sets used for water lifting from the river detached and also the bore well. The O.P.No.1 but, though dumped the materials in the land, at a delayed date did never make the system operational. At that time, there was standing sugar cane crop in the field and due to removal of the earlier pump sets basing on the assurances of O.P.No.1, and non installation of solar pumping system, he lost the entire crop amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-.
5. The complainant further avers, inspite of several approaches, the O.P.NO.1 never commissioned the Solar pumping System. He infers that, both O.P.No.1 & 2 had colluded together and had cheated him. The, reasons of his inferences are due to some bizarre activities, such a seven before he reached the bank on 30.03.2015, all relevant documents were kept ready for his signature, the amount of loan was disbursed to the O.P.No.1 on next day i.e. 31.03.2015 without his consent, the O.P.NO.1 has never submitted the Commissioning report and photographs of installation of the systems to the Bank resulting further non-sanction of subsidy amount from NABARD and so on. The complainant next claims that, his then standing crop loss and later failure of agriculture operation had caused him consequential damages of Rs.10 lacs.
6. Thereby, the complainant vide this complaint, seeks compensation of damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, waiver of levying any interest on the borrowed amount till factual installation of the Solar Pumping System and its’ Commission in the field.
7. Upon notice only O.P.s NO.2 and 3 have put up appearance through Counsel. The O.P.No.1 had preferred not to appear and hence has been placed exparte.
8. O.P.NO.2 has filed written versions and the same was adopted by the O.P.No.3 vide a memo filed on 02.06.2017. While the fact of complainant as agriculturist is admitted, the provision of irrigation facility from Manjra River and bore well is denied. The fact of appraisal about the Solar irrigation pump system by O.P.No.1 is also disputed. It is affirmed that, the complainant had approached the bank for loan along with the quotation from the O.P.No.1 and on scrutiny of the documents the O.P.No.2 as Branch Manager of O.P.NO.3 sanctioned the loan on 30.03.2015. The allegation that entire process was done on 30.03.2015 is claimed to be false. It is contended in para-4 of the versions that, as per the quotation and instructions of the complainant the amount was paid to the O.P. No. (sic-No such consent letter ever produced). The O.P.NO.2 & 3 also further relied upon by one sided deliberation of the O.P.NO.1 that, when he went to install the Solar Pumping system water in the bore well and the river both had dried up and, the complainant himself defered the installation proposing drilling another bore well and further that, in the month of May, the bore well such drilled yielded only 1”water at 410feet depth and so the 5 H.P. motor was not useful and special motor was fitted and the same is working. The O.P.No.2 and 3 further claim that, the Solar photovoltaic pumping system has been fully Commissioned, which is evident from the photos submitted. They also further claim that, the newly dug bore well till a depth of 410 feet, using 6 H.P. motor is not eligible for subsidy and they assert that, the complainant is bound to repay the loan amount.
9. Citing the above said reasons, the Bank (O.P.No.3) and its’ the then Manager (O.P.No.2) claims dismissal of the complaint with costs.
10. The contesting sides have filed documents listed at the end of this order, have filed evidence affidavits, written arguments and have been heard in length further clarifying their pleadings.
11. Considering the rival contention of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration.
- Dose the complainant prove the deficiency of service n the part of the O.P.S.?
- Do the O.P.No.2 and3 prove that, th sanction of loan, disbursement to theO.P.No.1 was in order.
- What orders?
12. Our answers to the arisen points are as following:-
- In the affirmative.
- In the negative
- As per final orders, owing to the following:-
:: REASONS ::
13. Point (1): In view of the serious contest by the Bank and its’ Manager(ex) that, the entire solar water pumping system was installed in the land of the complainant and apropos the I.A. filed by the complainant, a commissioner was appointed for spot inspection and report back the true state of affairs. Such commissioner, as per his report has conducted spot inspection on 25.04.2018 in the presence of both sides and also independent witnesses, prepared a spot Panchanama (Annexure-N) and has submitted color photos of the spot and the state of installation of solar pumping system herewith marked as Annexure-Q to Z11 (totally 21 numbers). He has also drawn a sketch (Annexure-P) of the spot and has submitted with the report. From the report of the commissioner and the photos submitted it is revealed that, two bore well submersible pump sets bearing Sl.No.16080 Model TR500 stage 14 and Sl.No.1608072 Model 6.0 PH 3 (both manufactured by Triveni and one starter are kept in the store room. It is further revealed that, even though solar plates were fitted and wire was fixed, connections to the solar panels were not given. The commissioners’ report further discloses that, bore well is fitted with pipes running in side and cable wires were affixed to such pipes but connection to the cable was not there and the bore wells in not in use. Albeit, the Bank producing two color photos vide Annexures R6 and R7 claim that, the system was fully installed, the claim and the proof is only half truth. Fixation of solar panels alone is not the panacea. In the photos, there is no trace of the pumping segment.
14. Hence, from the pleadings, evidences led and proof(s) submitted by the complainant an exclusive inference can be drawn that, inspite of receipt of full amount to the credit of the complainant, the O.P.No.1 has left the photovoltaic power generation and pumping mechanism incomplete to the perils if the complainant causing consequential damages to be compensated logically and we answer this point in the affirmative. The claim of the bank about dried bore wells and river, subsequent digging of 410 feet bore well later appears to be an afterthought.
15. Point No(2): In the entire episode, the Bank’s (OP.No.3) and its Manager’s (O.P.No.2) conduct is most quizzical in nature and stinks of collusion with the O.P. No.1 (Supplier of equipments). It is unseen, unheard of in the anals of banking transaction history, where in , the Bank sanctions a loan on 30.03.2015, pays the amount to the supplier on the next day directly without the authorisation of the customer, that too without receiving a project completion certificate and photographs evidencing the same and necessary bills and a claimed certificate in Annexure IV for the purpose of subsidy grant. From the letter of the bank date: 21.02.2017 in the addresses of the supplier (O.P.No.1) and complainant, it is crystal clear that, as on that date also the basic formalities were not completed. Why then, the O.P. bank and its’ Manager went out of the way to disburse the amount to the phony supplier? What was the cogent reason for such haste? Does not it amount to unfair trade practice? The bank cannot certainly be allowed to go scot free after indulging into illegal, immoral, unethical, illogical acts. Thence we answer this point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER.
- The complaint is allowed in part.
- The O.P.No.1 is hereby directed to install and commission the Solar Photovoltaic pumping system immaculately with optimum result in the land, bearing Sy.No.39 of the complainant in village Islampur Tq and Dist: Bidar without demur, or refund the amount with 12% interest p.a. calculated from 31.03.2015, till date of realisation. Choosing to refund the amount, he would be at liberty to remove the installed components. In the case of completion of project, the original bills, form vide Annexure-IV of the bank duly filled and completion photographs be submitted to the bank;
- The O.P.No.1 is further directed to reimburse a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant with 12% interest calculated from 31.03.2015 till realisation towards consequential damages;
- The O.P.No.2 and 3 committing misfeasance colluding with the O.P.No.1 are prohibited to charge any interest on the loaned amount till complete commission of the Solar pump set and directed not to declare the borrowings as N.P.A.;
- A cost of Rs.5,000/- each be paid by the O.P.NO.1 and 2 towards litigation expenses;
- Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30th day of June 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure.A-Sanction order of loan date: 31.03.2015 in favour of the
complainant by O.P.No.3 bank. - Annexure.B–Combo transfer Voucher of the O.P.No.3
date: 31.03.2015.
- Annexure. C– Letter of the bank date: 21.02.2017 in the address of
O.P.NO.1 and the complainant calling upon the
O.P.No.1 submit original bills installation format etc. - Annexure.D—Letter of the bank date: 23.03.2017 in the address of
the complainant for compliance a formalities to avail
subsidy. - Annexure. E– Letter of the bank date: 07.03.2017 as notice of default.
- Annexure.F- Another notice of default date: 30.10.2016.
- Annexure.G- Office copy of legal notice with postal receipts got
issued by the complainant on 14.12.2016. - Annexure.H- Office copy of a reply notice by one
Sri.B.Ratnakar Adv. - Annexure.J- Officecoy of reply notice date: 27.12.2016 by
Sri. M.A. Khan Adv. - Annexure.K- Copy of tax invoice date: 02.05.2015 of O.P.No.1.
- Annexure.L &M- Color potage of covers of concepts.
- Annexure.N- Spot panchanama date: 25.04.2018 of the court
Commissioner. - Annexure.P- Sketch Map of this spot prepared by the court
Commissioner. - Annexures.Q to Z11(21)- of the spot and installations submitted by
Court Commissioner.
Document produced by the Opponents.
- Annexure.R.1- Copy of the letter issued by the bank to O.P. No-1
and complainant date: 21.02.2017. - Annexure.R.2- Copy of the letter by the bank to the complainant
date: 17.03.2017 regarding installation invoice of
Solar Pump. - Annexue.R.3- Copy of the letter of O.P.No.1 to the bank
date: 05.03.2017 (with invoice). - Annexure.R.4- Copy of the bank letter to theO.P.No.1
date: 22.03.2017. - Annexure.R.5- Banks letter to the complainant (copy) date:
23.03.2017 regarding subsidy under NABARD solar
Pump set scheme. - Annexure.R.6-R.7- Color photos depicting installation of solar
panels only.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Sri.Ganapathrao S/o Kashappa Khuba (complainant).
Opponent No.1
- R.W.1- Sri. Sitaramdas Branch Manager Panjab National Bank
Kukatpalli Hyderabad.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
