Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/9/2019

The Secretary, Z.A. and 2 others - Complainant(s)

Versus

P. Sivakumar, and 3 others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. D. Prabhu

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH     :     PRESIDENT

                 Thiru R. VENKATESAPERUMAL              :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 9 of 2019

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.14 of 2017 dated 14.06.2018 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Nagapattinam)

 

Wednesday, the 30^th day of August 2022

1. The Secretary

    Z.A 73 Primary Agricultural

       Co-operative Society

    Thirumarugal.

 

2.  The Deputy Secretary

    Z.A 73 Primary Agricultural

       Co-operative Society

    Thirumarugal.

 

3.  The President

    Z.A 73 Primary Agricultural

       Co-operative Society

    Thirumarugal.                        .. Appellants/ Opposite Parties 1 to 3

 

- Vs –

1. Mr. P.Sivakumar    

S/o. Mr.Palanivel Pillai

Thirumarugal Village

Nagapattinam.                           .. 1^st Respondent/ Complainant.

 

2. The Sub-Registrar,

Z.A. 73, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society,

Thirumarugal,

 

3. The Joint Registrar,

Co-operative Society Joint Secretary Office,

Collector Office Campus,

Nagapattinam.

4. The Collector,

Collector Office,

Nagapattinam.         .. Respondents 2 to 4 / Opposite parties 4 to 6.

  

    Counsel for Appellants /Opposite Parties  : M/s. Prabu

    Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Served, called absent

 

Respondents 2 to 4 / Opposite parties 4 to 6 : No relief prayed against                

                                                              them. Notice dispensed with

                                                                 

                                                                       

        This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 12.04.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Appellant and on perusing the materials on record, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

  

                1.     This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties       1 to 3 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 14.06.2018 passed in C.C. No.14 of 2017, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagapattinam, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein, in part. 

 

                2.  The appellants are the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the respondent is the complainant.  For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as per their ranking before the District Forum.

 

 

        3.  The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that the complainant is a member in the Society of the opposite parties 1 to 3, since 1991.  He is also having a Savings Account in the said society.   His Account Number is 897.  The complainant was also paying premium under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme.  He was availing crop loan from the society of the opposite parties 1 to 3, upto 2006 and was prompt in repaying the loan amount.  After some time the complainant availed agricultural loan from Nationalised Banks, pledging jewels.  Hence he has not availed loan from the Society of the opposite parties 1 to 3.  In the year 2016, the complainant again approached the Society of the opposite parties 1 to 3, for availing agricultural loan for “Kuruvai harvest”.  He also submitted copies of all necessary documents such as patta, chitta, adangal etc.  The 1^st opposite party asked him to come after 15 days.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on several occasions.  But, the loan was not sanctioned to him purposely.  During September 2016, when he asked the 1^st opposite party as to why the crop loan was not sanctioned to him, he was informed that the documents produced by him has been lost and hence he was asked to give a fresh application with necessary documents.  Accordingly the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party with crop loan application, but he refused to receive the same.  Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice on 09.11.2016 but no reply was given by the opposite parties.  Hence, the complainant has come forward with the present complaint seeking to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3, to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost and also to sanction crop loan.

 

                4.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing a written version stating that it is incorrect to state that the complainant was prompt in repaying the loan.  Since the complainant failed to repay the loan obtained in the year 1999 and 2006, arbitration proceedings were initiated and an award was passed in the     arbitration proceedings.  However, based on policy decision, the Government waived off the entire agricultural loan in the year 2007,  through which the complainant was also benefitted.   Thereafter        the complainant had never approached the Society of the opposite parties 1 to 3, seeking agricultural loan.  He did not approach the Society of the opposite parties 1 to 3, with the loan application in     the year 2016 as stated in the complaint.  Had he approached the Society of the opposite parties 1 to 3, definitely the said application would have been considered and loan would have been sanctioned, if he is eligible.  In November 2016 he sent a legal notice with false averments.  On receipt of the said notice, the 1^st opposite party has called the complainant in person and enquired him as to why he had sent the legal notice.  The complainant had stated that on the wrong advice of one of his relatives he has sent the legal notice and further he had stated that he is not going to initiate any action against them.  Hence, no reply was sent to the legal notice issued by the complainant.   But, thereafter, he has made the present complaint with false allegations.  Absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and hence sought for dismissal of the complaint.

                5. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit 8 documents were filed, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A8.  On the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3, along with proof affidavit of 1^st opposite party, 2 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2.

                6.  The District Forum, by relying upon the legal notice sent by the complainant and the statement of the 1^st opposite party in the version to the effect that on receipt of the legal notice they called the complainant and advised him, would show the inaction of the opposite parties in processing the loan application of the complainant.  Hence, the District Forum held that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- as compensation and a cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant.  Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3.

 

        7.  Heard the submission of the counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties 1 to 3 and perused the material on records.  Though notice has been served, there is no representation for the respondent/ complainant.  Notice has been dispensed with Respondents 2 to 4/ opposite parties 4 to 6, since no relief is prayed for, as against them.

 

                8.  It is the specific stand of the appellants/ opposite parties, earlier during the year 2006 arbitration proceedings were initiated since the complainant has not repaid the loan availed by him in the year 1999 and 2006.  Though award has been passed against the complainant, since the Government waived off the agricultural loan amounts in the year 2017, they have not initiated any action against the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant had never approached the society of the opposite parties 1 to 3 for loan and he has approached only the National Bank for availing crop loan.  In view of the stand taken by the opposite party duty is cast upon the complainant to prove that he has approached the 1^st opposite party for loan.  We find that only bald and vague statements are made in the complaint and no substantial evidence is produced to show that the complainant has approached the society of the opposite parties 1 to 3, for agricultural loan and that the same was denied by the opposite parties on unilateral reasons.  Further we are of the opinion that the complainant cannot ask for a loan as a matter of right.  It is purely the discretion of the opposite parties based on various factors.  When the sanction of loan is not a matter of right, the complainant cannot allege any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  But, without considering all these aspects, the District Forum merely relying upon the legal notice has allowed the complaint.  Therefore, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.  

 

        9.  In the result, the Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagapattinam), in C.C. No.14 of 2017 dated 14.06.2018 is set aside.  Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                    R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/August/2022