F.A.1028 OF 2009 with
F.A. 1037 OF 2009
Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent. Since, both the appeals arise out of a common order,these appeals are disposed of with a common order.
2. These appeals are filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant is a Kisan Credit Card Holder of B.D.C.C. Bank Ullunda Branch and his loan pass book account No. was 2/86. It is alleged that on 11.12.2007 the complainant has appeared before the OP No.1 and the OP has sanctioned loan of Rs.25,500/- out of which Rs.16,500/- has been disbursed as cash and Rs.9,000/- in kinds as per the endorsement made in the loan register. He submitted that no cash or kind has been given to him. He had gone to the OP time to time but could not be successful. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a complaint asking for compensation.
4. the OP No.3 is set-exparte. OP No.1 & 2 filed written version stating that sanction of loan has been made but loan amount could not be disbursed due to negligence of the complainant. They have not receive any complaint from the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ In the facts and circumstances of this case we think that a consolidated amount of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony, harassment and allied factors and a sum Rs.1500/- towards cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly it is hereby ordered as follows:-
- The OP No.1 shall give a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and allied factors.
- The OP No.1 shall also give a sum of Rs.1500/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
- All these payments should be made within a period of one month from the date of order.
The complaint is partly allowed. “
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the OP having admitted the sanction of loan but did not disburse same without any valid reason, there is cause of action for the complainant to file the case. Since, it is admitted that disbursement of the loan is not a matter of right but when the OP failed to prove the negligence of the complainant, the complainant has got right to claim compensation. So, she submitted that she is entitled to more compensation. In the appeal memo learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they have sanctioned the loan but did not disburse same because the complainant has not come forward to receive the loan amount. Learned District Forum although has observed that rabi crop has already over but yet allowed compensation. When there is no any complaint in writing it can not be said that cause of action has been proved. Moreover, the compensation, without finding deficiency in service for non-disbursement of the loan can not be a ground for allowing compensation. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant is a Kisan Credit Card Holder and he has asked for rabi crop loan 2007-08 and it has been sanctioned for Rs.25,500/-. It is admitted fact that the loan has not been disbursed to the complainant. The OP has taken plea that due to non-cooperation of the complainant the loan was not sanctioned. It is settled in law that the OP has taken the plea of non-disbursed, now the onus lies on him to prove the negligence of the complainant. Thus, we are of the view that once the negligence is not proved by the OP, then the deficiency in service on the part of the OP is well proved by the complainant because OP have not disbursed the loan which they have already sanctioned. The affidavit of the complainant clearly shows that he has run to the OP from time to time to get the loan amount but it was not made available. Therefore, there is also mental agony and harassment of the complainant.
9. In view of aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that the impugned order is legal and proper and nothing to interfere with it. Therefore, both the appeals stands dismissed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
