Date of Filing : 03.11.2011
Date of Order : 10.02.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 10th day of February 2012
PRESENT
Sri. T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH …….. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No. 212 / 2011
1. Sri. Giriyappa,
S/o. Jalarappa, Aged 72 years,
Bodaganahalli, Thippenahalli Post,
Chickaballapur Tq. & District.
2. Sri. B.G. Nagaraju,
S/o. Giriyappa,
Bodaganahalli, Thippenahalli Post,
Chikkaballapur Tq. & District. ……. Complainants
V/s.
M/s. Vijaya Bank,
No. 41/2, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 001,
And a Branch at Chikkballapur,
Chikkaballapur City,
Rep. by its Principal Officer and the
Branch Manager Sri. Suresh. C. Gadgoli of
Chikkaballapur Branch,
Chikkaballapur. …… Opposite Party
ORDER
By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER
This Complaint is filed by the Complainants u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OP seeking payment of compensation of Rs.4.00 Lakhs, costs of the complaint and such other relief/s as the Forum would deem fit.
2. The Complainants have alleged that they being small farmers had availed loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from OP Bank for agriculture purpose on 17.02.2008 by mortgaging their land to the extent of 2.2 acres in V.K.C. No. 250005. Under the Loan Waiver Scheme introduced by the Government of India, Complainants were eligible for loan waiver as their land holding was less than 5 acres. The OP did not bring to the notice of the government that Complainants had land holding of less than 5 acres. So, they were deprived of the loan waiver scheme. Aggrieved by the same, they have approached this Forum by filing CC No. 90 /2009 on 10.09.2009. Their Complaint was partly allowed. An Appeal between the said parties is pending disposal before the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No. 246/2011. The Complainants have further alleged that during pendency of the Appeal before the Hon’ble State commission, in order to obtain time limitation the OP has fabricated, cooked up Document 51 i.e., Acknowledgement of liability and such illegal fabricating of the false documents amounts to unfair trade practices, which came to the notice of the Complainants on 14.05.2011 and they filed this Complaint.
3. The OP though served with notice remained exparte.
4. On perusal of the complaint averments, documents viz., Acknowledgement of liability, the points that arise for our consideration are as under:
(1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of OP ?
(2) If so, to what relief/s the Complainants are entitled ?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No. 1 – Negative
(2) Point No. 2 – As per final order
REASONS
6. Point No. 1 - The Complainants’ grievance is that OP has fabricated the Acknowledgement of Liability wherein the outstanding due is shown as Rs.4,73,646/- with interest upto 20.02.2008 which they allege is unfair trade practice. They have relied on the Order passed by Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No. 1091/2006. In the said case, the seller has lured the purchaser to purchase soft drink by offering Khufiya Card, but in reality had not given Khufiya Card on purchasing Pepsi bottle. It was held that the seller had indulged in unfair trade practice and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded apart from Rs.43/- towards cost of Pepsi bottle and interest @12% P.A..
7. In the present complaint, there is no allurement of Complainants by the OP, but signatures of the Complainants have been obtained on acknowledgement of Liability during pendency of Appeal before Hon’ble State Commission. However, this act of the OP does not fall under the category of unfair trade practice as the Complainants have not in any way been lured by OP. It is true that there is consumer-service provider relationship between the Complainants and the OP. In other words, the Complainants as consumers are borrowers and the OP as loan provider is rendering service to the Complainants. If there is any development during pendency of the Appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission, Complainants cannot file fresh Complaint against the OP for relief. Instead the Complainants can seek justice in the Appeal which is pending by bringing the anomaly to the notice of the Hon’ble State Commission. Hence, Point No. 1 is held against the Complainants.
8. Point No. 2 – In view of the negative finding on Point No. 1, Complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10th day of February 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T.RAJASHEKHARAIAH
Member Member President
SSS
