BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT:THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 72 / 1999 TUESDAY THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2010. T. Margabandu Chettiar, S/o. Tanikachala Chettiar, No.20, Kaliyathamman Koil Street, Takkolam Village & Post, Arknonam Taluk, Vellore District. … Complainant. - Vs – 1. The Secretary, Takkolam Co-op Agri Bank Limited, Takkolam Post, Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District. 2. Sakthi Engineering Co., No.494, Nethaji Road, Erode 638 001. 3. The Block Development Officer, Arkonam Panchayat Union Office, Arakonam. … Opposite parties. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 22.6.2010, in the presence of Thiru.T.M.Sivakumar, Advocate for the complainant and opposite party-1 already set exparte and Thiru. Dhashina Moothy Advocate for the opposite party No.2 and Thiru.T.A.Md. Akbarbasha, Advocate for the opposite party-3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is an agriculturist. He is a member of the 1st opposite party society. The 1st opposite party granted loan of Rs.9100/- to the complaint for the construction of Cobar Gas Plant during the year 1993-1994. The 2nd opposite party was entrusted with the installation work of the plants on contract. Since the installation was done by the 2nd opposite party the complainant was not given any money under the loan. The entire loan was given to the 2nd opposite party by the 1st opposite party for installation. After installation by the 2nd opposite party, the Gobar Gas plant did not function properly from the beginning. The complainant could not put the plant even to the minimum possible use. It was kept idle without serving the purpose for which it was installed. Further complainant also expensed his money of Rs.3000/- for annul works for installing this plant. The complainant several time asked 3rd opposite party directly and by writing to rectify the plant, but there is no response from the 2nd opposite party and so the complainant could not use the plant. Since the complainant could not use the plant he was unable to pay the loan amount. The 1st opposite party issued a notice to the complainant to pay the loan amount and also he threatened that he will attach and take away the movables in the house and so the complainant paid Rs.1,500/- to him again the 1st opposite party issued notice to pay the entire amount but the complainant is unable to pay any further amount towards the loan amount. He prayed for directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the Gobar Gas plant for a new one since it is beyond repair or in alternative to pay the entire loan amount of Rs.9100/- or to waive the entire loan of the plant could not be replaced and to pay Rs.3,000/- expensed by the complainant and to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as damages towards mental agony and suffering and cost of this complaint. 2. The 1st opposite party was set exparte. The averment in the counter filed the by 2nd opposite party is as follows; The entire allegations raised in the petition itself false, baseless and only filed this application by the complainant to simply escape from his liability to discharge the legitimate debt due. The complainant purchased only the Biogas stove from the opposite party at Erode by producing the D.D.no.543292 for Rs.1335/- dt.23.8.93 and as such the opposite party issued the credit bill and receipt for the same. The opposite party is nothing to do with other acts as alleged in para -2 of the complaint and no such privity of contract between the parties and further nothing produced by the complaint to prove the same. As per in the opposite party the transaction took place only on 16.8.93 at Erode. Hence the complaint is hopelessly time barred one and this Hon’ble Forum also no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The complainant without discharging the legitimate due to the Government and prolong the matter and divert the matter in to the court filed the petition in a very vague manner and without any basis and further completely suppressing the true facts happened in this matter. Hence this complaint is to be dismissed with cost. 3. The averments in the counter filed by the 3rd opposite party are as follows: The opposite party does not admit any of the averments contained in the complaint, except those that are specifically admitted hereunder and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and on that score alone the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. He is only a recommending authority for a loan to be granted for erecting a bio-gas plant. Accordingly the opposite party on the application of the complainant, recommended to the 1st opposite partly to grant a loan of Rs.9,100,/- to the complainant for erection of a bio-gas plant in the year 1993. Accordingly the 1st opposite party granted a loan to the complainant and the 2nd opposite party also installed a bio-gas plant in the premises of the complainant. The subsidy also has been recommended by the opposite party and the same was also paid to the complainant by the 1st opposite party. The complainant never complained about the non functioning of the bio-gas plant to the opposite party at any time. The bio-gas plant was erected by the 2nd opposite party and has been functioning in the complainant’s premises. Since the complainant failed to pay the loan amount to the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite partly flied an arbitration proceedings against the complainant and obtained a decree against him and the same is being executed by him. Thus the complaint as against the opposite party is meaningless and without any basis. Therefore this complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost. 4. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether this complaint claim is barred by limitation?. b) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties herein?. c) Whether the complaint herein is entitled for any of the reliefs asked for, in this complaint?. 5. Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on the side of the complainant and no documents were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 6. POINT No. (a); It is admitted facts of the parties that based on the application of the complainant, the 3rd opposite party recommended to the 1st opposite party to grant a loan of Rs.9100/- to the complainant for erection of a bio-gas plant in the year 1993. Accordingly the 1st opposite party granted a loan to the complainant and the 2nd opposite party installed a bio-gas plant in the premises of the complainant. 7. The complainant contented that the 2nd opposite party was entrusted with the installation work of the plants on contract. Accordingly, the 2nd opposite party installed a bio-gas plant in the previous of this complaint. After the installation the Gobar Gas plant did not function properly from the beginning. The complainant could not put the plant even to the minimum possible use. It was kept idle without serving the purpose for which it was installed. Since the complainant could not use the plant he was unable to pay the loan amount. Therefore, directing the opposite to replace the Gobar Gas plant for a new one or in alternative to pay the entire loan amount. 8. The opposite parties contended that the entire allegations raised in the petition itself false, baseless and only filed this application by the complainant to simply escape from his liability to discharge the legitimate debt due. The complainant purchased the Biogas stove from the opposite party at Erode by producing the D.No.543292 for Rs.1335/- dt.23.8.93 and as such the 2nd opposite party issued the credit bill and receipt for the same. The said transaction took place only on 16.8.93 at Erode. Hence the complaint is hopelessly time barred one and this Hon’ble Forum also no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Further, since the complainant failed to pay the loan amount to the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite partly flied arbitration proceedings against the complainant and obtained a decree against him and the same is being executed by him. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. 9. The complainant has not denied the contention that based on the application of the complainant, the 3rd opposite party recommended to the 1st opposite party to grant a loan of Rs.9100/- to the complainant for erection of a bio-gas plant in the year 1993. Accordingly the 1st opposite party granted a loan to the complainant and the 2nd opposite party also installed a bio-gas plant in the premises of the complainant. From the perusal of Ex.A2, dt. 16.8.93, Credit bill of 2nd opposite party it is seen that the bio-gas stove purchase in the name of the complainant from the 2nd opposite party i.e. Sakthi Engineering Company, Erode on 16.8.93. The said bio-gas strove received by the complainant through ABT parcel. On the perusal of Ex.A7 letter from the complainant to the District Collect, District Collectorate, bio-gas section, Vellore it is mentioned that the bio-gas plant was installed on March 1994 and request the Collector to write of the entire loan amount. Therefore it is clear that the transaction between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party regarding the bio-gas stove purchased on 16.8.93 and installation of the bio-gas was completed on March 1994. After five years from the installation of bio-gas, this complaint was filed on 7.7.99. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. 10. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration, we have come to the conclusion that this complaint filed by the complainant is clearly barred by limitation. Hence, we answer this points (a) as against the complainant herein. 11. POINT NO. (b) & (c ):- In view of our findings in points (a) and in view of our discussions made above, we have also come to the conclusion, that this complaint filed by the complainant clearly barred by limitation and the complainant herein is not at all entitled to any of the reliefs, asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence, we answer this points (b) & (c ) also as against the complainant herein. 12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 29 day of June 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- -- - Bank Pass Book. Ex.A2- 16.8.93 - Sakthi Engineering Company’s Invoice Bill. Ex.A3- 7.2.94 - Post card written by the Engineer. Ex.A4- 11.3.94 - Letter written by the Engineer. Ex.A5- -- - ABT Parcel Service Receipt. Ex.A6- 5.12.95 - Notice issued by the 1st opposite party. Ex.A7- -- - X-copy of letter sent to the District Collector, Vellore. Ex.A8- 13.1.96 - Ack. Card. Opposite party’s Exhibits: .. Nil.. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. | 
