Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member.

1.      The present appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Wardha dated 23/03/2010 in complaint case No. 83/2009 granting partly the complaint and directing that

i.        The O.P.No. 1(short for opposite party) gave deficient service to the complainant by rejecting  his application  made for loan.

ii.       The O.P.  to provide Rs. 15000/- to complainant for physical and mental harassment.

iii.      The O.P. to provide the cost of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant.

iv.      The O.P. Nos. 1&2 are directed that if complainant makes a complete application with papers as per the government scheme he should be provided the loan on priority.

v.       The complaint is dismissed as against the O.P.No. 2 as no allegation is proved against it.

vi.      The O.P.No. 1 to comply the order in the span of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order & in case of failure, the O.P. to pay interest upon the amount directed from the date of filing the complaint at the rate of 9% p.a. till final payment.

2.      The complainant made a complaint in brief as under:-

(a)     Complainant is in the category of below poverty line. He filed an application to get the loan from the O.P. No. 1 under “Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Niwara Yojana No. 2” (in short Yojana) in the year 2007-2008. He filed proper application with supported documents before the O.P. No. 2, the Gram Panchyat which cleared his application and submitted it to O.P. No. 1.

(b)     However, the officers of O.P.No. 1 asked him  to first clear the loan of his father which he cleared.  He also deposited his share of Rs. 10000/- on 06/11/2008. However, the O.P.No. 1 and the Branch Manager and one Clerk by name Hiware did not sanction his loan and caused mental harassment to him. He was due to get the loan as per the directions of “Rajiv Gandhi Yojana”. He also gave a notice to the O.P.No. 2 dated 05/11/2009, which the O.P.  did not reply and did not give any reason  to  deny the loan.  He therefore filed a complaint before the learned Forum with prayer to direct the O.P.  Nos. 1&2 to provide him Rs. 1,00,000/- for  deficiency in service resulting in physical and mental harassment and expenditure and also direct them to provide him the cost of Rs. 5000/-, all with interest at the rate of 12% from the  date of complaint.

3.      On notice the O.P. Nos. 1&2 appeared and countered the complaint in brief as follows,

(a)     O.P. No. 2 submitted that it received the application and after properly processing it sent it to the Panchyat Samittee, Selu, District Wardha on 03/12/2008.  Then further action to sanction the loan was to be taken by the O.P. No. 1. Hence, O.P. No. 2 is not responsible for it, which has already submitted the required information as was requested from it.

(b)     The O.P.No. 1 submitted that  the  complainant did not  implead  the  proper  opposite parties namely  District Rural Development  Scheme  Department, District Collector  and the District Lead Bank as per the  government G.R. relating to  Rajiv Gandhi Yojana under which  he had  filed  the  request for  housing loan.  Hence, the complaint deserves dismissal.  Also  the  complainant  was  in the category of  below poverty  line, whereas the Yojana was meant  for  above poverty line (for short  APL) category of persons.  He did not file the certificates regarding his income and the piece of land from the Tahsildar. But filed the certificate of the rank of Nayab Tahsildar. The O.P. filed the copy of the G.R.  regarding the Yojana of the  government of Maharashtra and submitted that as the  application  was not  according to the requirements under  the Yojana,  it could not be  sanctioned. The complainant made false complaint against the Clerk and Officer of the branch of the O.P. He also had one more house in the village and thus suppressed material information about him. As the application did not fit into the conditions of the Yojana it was not sanctioned.  Complainant did not pay any consideration to get the service of O.P. No. 1 and hence is not a consumer. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

4.      The learned Forum heard both the parties and held that the O.P.No 2 performed its duty. Hence, the complaint is dismissed against it.  However, the O.P.No. 1 did not file the affidavit of the persons against whom the allegations are made and also did not file the list of all beneficiaries who received the loan. The O.P.No. 2 is a Branch of Nationalized Bank and did not satisfy the requirements of the directions issued by the Government in the Yojana. The O.P. No.2 therefore committed deficiency in service causing physical and mental harassment to the complainant. The complainant gave a notice and opportunity to O.P. No. 2 to sanction the loan. Therefore, holding the harassment by the O.P.No. 2, Forum passed the order as above.

5.      Aggrieved against the order, the O.P.No. 2 filed this  appeal & hence, referred as  appellant.  Advocate Mr. Lahiri appeared on behalf of the appellant. The original complainant is referred as respondent No. 1 who filed written notes of argument and pleaded his case personally. The original O.P. No. 1 is referred as respondent No.2 - SBI which remained absent.  Hence, declared exparte.

6.      The appellant raised the same ground as before the Forum stating that the respondent being in the BPL (Below Poverty Line) category filed the application which was meant for above poverty line. The appellant submitted the copy of G.R. of the Yojana in which proper procedure is prescribed to sanction the loan.  The respondent No. 2 is a small link in the Yojana. The application is to be submitted to the District Rural Development Officer (for short DRDO) and to the District Collector after which it is submitted to the appellant. The required parties are not impleaded in the complaint. Hence, the appellant had no responsibility to sanction the loan.  The learned Forum did not appreciate the conditions of the Yojana and that the respondent No. 1 is not a consumer and eligible for loan as he did not pay any consideration.  The learned Forum thus passed the order in a erroneous manner.  Hence, it needs to be set aside.

7.      The respondent No. 1 submitted the same ground stating that the appellant did not ask him to file a proper documents, if there was any lacuna and deprived the respondent No.1 from getting loan. The learned Forum passed a proper order which needs to be confirmed.

8.      We considered the contentions of both the parties and perused the copy of the G.R.  of the Government  issued  for  Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Niwara Yojana No. 2(Yojana). The Yojana stipulates that the person in  above poverty line category with   a space for construction of house has to  file the application in the Grampanchyat with certificates of  income, caste,  and  the title about  the  plot which  has to be signed by the officer not below the rank of the Tahsildar. The Gram Panchyat then has to submit the complete form to the Panchyat Samittee. The Panchyat Samittee then  has to  submit the  complete Form to District Rural  Development Officer (DRDO) then  has to  submit the  Form  to the Bank (appellant) and  then  list of applicants is required to be submitted  to Maharashtra Housing  Development Corporation and  to the District Collector.

          After receipt of application by the bank, the DRDO is required  to monitor  the application  and  advise  the applicant  to deposit Rs. 10,000/- and  the DRDO is required to  remain in contact  with the bank and get the application approved  and the loan  disbursed.

          It is the  responsibility of the  DRDO and  the District Collector to see that the applicant  has a  space for construction of plot and also  the number of  persons to be given  with the  loan  and  to verify the  allotment of  loan  to the  applying members.

9.      This clearly shows that the process of application for loan by a person in either above poverty line or below poverty category has to pass through different authorities before submitting the proposal to the bank. In between authorities have responsibility to monitor the application and see that the application is properly processed and the bank sanctioned the loan and the loan is properly utilized till the final repayment of loan by the applicant. It also has a provision that the District Collector is supposed to verify each application and find out why it is rejected and solve if any grievance develops.

10.    It shows that under the  aforesaid  scheme (Yojana)  the respondent No. 1 had support of  the above District Authority if his proposal  was getting  delayed  or  rejected  by the  appellant bank. It also shows that if the proposal was not getting sanctioned then he had an opportunity to make the complaint to the District Collector and receive redress of his complaint. It shows that he also must have approached the authorities and must have made efforts through them to get his difficulties solved.

11.    It shows that  it was certainly incumbent upon the respondent No.1  to implead  the  aforesaid District Authorities in the present complaint so as to verify the action  taken by them and to know as to whether  his  complaints were either attended by them or  were found to be  not in the bracket of the above G.R. It shows that the respondent did not implead the aforesaid authorities except the Gram Panchyat and thus suppressed the material information from the Forum to come to the proper conclusion.

12.    We also find that the respondent No. 1 filed complaint without prayer to provide him the loan.  But he filed the complaint with a request to provide him the compensation for harassment and cost. It shows that the respondent was well aware of the fact that he was not eligible to get the loan and hence, his request may not have been accepted by the District Authorities which were not impleaded by him.  When the respondent No. 1 did not make a prayer for the loan and service of it, he does not remain the consumer. When there is no request for service, there cannot be any ground for the claim of harassment and agony along with cost. When there is no basic right as a consumer he cannot claim any cause of harassment and cost by filing such complaint.

13.    We find that the learned Forum did not verify the requirements of Yojana as per the G.R. of the Government and did not try to find out the responsibilities of the authorities. The learned Forum passed the order without verifying whether the respondent had any enforceable right and whether he approached the aforesaid   District Authorities for that purpose. Thus the order being passed erroneously deserves to be set aside. 

14.    As the respondent suppressed the material information  regarding  the process  of his application  and did not implead  the  aforesaid  proper  authorities  to evaluate  his contentions,  the  complaint  looses its value and needs  to be dismissed.  Hence, the order of the learned Forum needs   to be set aside.  We proceed to allow the appeal without any cost.

ORDER

i.        The appeal is allowed.

ii.       The order of the Forum is set aside. In the event the complaint stands dismissed.

iii.      Stay if any stands vacated.

iv.      The parties to bear their own cost.

v.       Copy of the order be given to both the parties, free of cost.