District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Near F.C.I. Godowns, Muradpura Tarn Taran (Punjab)
Consumer Complaint No : 35 of 2016
Date of Institution : 26.4.2016
Date of Decision : 2.8.2016
- Sukhwinder Kaur widow of Kulwinder Singh
- Rajbir Kaur daughter of Kulwinder Singh both residents of village Khakh, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib District Tarn Taran
- Sharanjit Kaur wife of Ranjit Singh daughter of Kulwinder Singh resident of village Naushehra Pannuan Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.
…Complainants
Versus
Punjab Gramin Bank, Branch Thakthuchak Tehsil Khadoor Sahib District Tarn Taran through its Manager.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. A.K.Mehta, President.
Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. H.S. Sandhu Advocate
For Opposite Party : Exparte vide order dated 9.6.2016
A.K. Mehta, President
1 Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur etc. complainants have filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against Punjab Gramin Bank Branch Thakthuchack Tehsil Khadoor Sahib District Tarn Taran opposite party (O.P) on the allegations of deficiency in service with prayer to direct the opposite party to release the payment of credit limit to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- besides Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2 The case of the complainants is that they are legal heirs of the deceased Kulwinder Singh and are owners of agriculture land in village Khakh Tehsil Khadoor Sahib District Tarn Taran; that the complainant NO. 1 is widow and does not have any source of income whereas other complainants are daughters of Kulwinder Singh; that the complainants were in need of some credit for their agriculture need and they approached the opposite party for getting a credit limit against their agriculture land on low interest rate as per Govt. policy and opposite party agreed to sanction a credit limit in the bank and the bank officials referred the complainant to an advocate for obtaining a legal opinion regarding ownership of complainant.; that the complainants then paid the fee of the advocate for obtaining the legal opinion who gave the report that the complainants are actual owners in possession of the agriculture land up to their shares and all other formalities which were required by the opposite party were fulfilled and for that expenses and fee were paid by the complainants as required by the authorities dealing with the paper work and in total Rs. 15,000/- were spent by the complainants for completing the formalities required by the opposite party and these expenses were borne by them by obtaining personal loan from the co-villagers; that after the satisfaction of the opposite party in lieu of paper work required for the credit limit, he sanctioned a credit limit and refer the complainants for getting the mutation of ‘ADD REHAN’ i.e. the mortgage in his favour to be executed by the complainants and the same was got sanctioned and Rapat No. 141 of the same dated 8.12.2015 was got entered in the revenue record and a credit limit of Rs. 3 Lacs was sanctioned by opposite party by opening a credit limit loan account of the complainants; that after getting the mutation of mortgage sanctioned in favour of the opposite party, the complainants approached the opposite party for getting the credit from the credit limit but they were astonished and embarrassed when the opposite party refused to release any cash/ payment in favour of the complainants from the credit limit loan; that the complainants requested the opposite party to release the same as they were in need of the money for the agriculture needs and also told the opposite party that they have already spent a huge amount in getting the limit sanctioned from him and the opposite party is bound to release payment from the credit limit as per the Policy of the Government but the opposite party refused to release the same. Hence the present complaint was filed.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was sent to Opposite Parties. Opposite Party was declared to have been duly served through registered cover but none appeared on behalf of opposite party and consequently Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte vide detailed order dated 9.6.2016
4 Sufficient opportunities were granted to the complainant to lead evidence in order to prove her case. The complainant tendered in to evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, Jamabandi for the year 2013-14 Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence.
5 We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the evidence and documents filed by the complainant.
6 Ld. counsel for complainant contended that the complainants are owners of land situated at village Khakh as is apparent from copy of Jamabandi Ex. C-2 and complainants wanted to avail credit limit from Opposite Party- Gramin Bank and approached the concerned branch and then as per requirement of official of the opposite party/ bank, complainants obtained opinion of advocate regarding ownership of land and then the opposite party sanctioned the credit limit and thereafter a mutation of mortgage was sanctioned in the land records/ Jamabandi as is clear from the copy of Jamabandi Ex. C-2 but thereafter when the complainant approached the opposite party/ bank for disbursement of limit amount then opposite party/ bank refused to release the amount inspite of repeated visits and requests of complainants and this conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and it has also caused harassment and mental agony to the complainants and complainants have also spent money for obtaining legal opinion and also suffered loss of money and as such the complaint is required to be allowed and opposite party/ bank is required to be directed to release the credit limit and to also pay compensation and litigation expenses.
7 The case of the complainant is that he wanted to avail credit limit from Opposite party/ bank and completed the requirement of bank and opposite party/ bank sanctioned the credit limit and thereafter even land was mortgaged in favour of bank but even thereafter opposite party/ bank refused to release the amount under the credit limit. However complainant Sukhwinder Kaur has only proved her affidavit Ex. C-1 and copy of Jamabandi Ex. C-2 on the file and copy of Jamabandi Ex. C-2 shows that complainants are cosharers in the land and some portion of land has been mortgaged in favour of bank. No other document has been proved on the file. The complainants have not even proved application filed for release of credit limit nor complainants have filed any document showing that credit limit has been sanctioned by the opposite party/ bank. Otherwise, if complainants have filed application for providing credit limit then complainants are only applicants to the opposite party/ bank for credit limit and till credit limit is sanctioned in favour of complainants and complainants avail credit limit from opposite party/ bank, complainants are not consumers under the opposite party/ bank, they are simply applicants. Unless the complainants prove themselves as consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, they are not entitled to file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The copy of Jamabandi Ex. C-2 only shows that complainants must have applied for credit limit from opposite party bank and must have mortgaged their land in favour of bank as per requirement of opposite party/ bank but this copy of Jamabandi does not show that credit limit has been sanctioned and has been availed by the complainants. As discussed earlier if the credit limit has not been sanctioned by the Opposite Party/ bank and complainants have not availed credit limit, they are only applicants and complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable.
8 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Otherwise, the complainants are entitled to avail their remedy under appropriate law and Forum. Copy of the order be sent to the complainants free of costs as per law. File be consigned to the records.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 2.8.2016.
