The instant complaint has been filed by Abdul Latif and his wife viz.Mahechaena Begam of village Paschim Khayerbari under P.S. Madarihat, Alipurduar u/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer for giving direction upon the O.P to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for loss sustained by them due to refusal to sanction of Kishan Credit Card Loan and also directing the O.P to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.
The fact of the case, in brief, as per complaint is that the complainants are farmers and they used to earn their livelihood by cultivation. They are permanent resident of village Paschim Khairbari and they have an account in the bank of O.P i.e. Allahabad Bank. The complainant approached the O.P/Bank for loan in the scheme of Kishan Credit Card Loan amounting to Rs.50, 000/- for the purpose of cultivation of potato on 19.08.2014 which is being short term credit requirement for cultivation of crops and post harvest expenses etc. According to order issued by NABARD in circular No.97/PCD10/2012 dated 20.04.2012 the farmers are entitled to K.C.C .Loan on creation of charge of land record. In that view a loan was sanctioned by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Madarihat, Alipurduar and it was transmitted to O.P/Bank and subsequently the complainants deposited the Record of Rights for obtaining the said loan bearing Khatian No.733 and 579, J.L.No.41 under Mouza- Paschim Khairbari, P.S. Madarihat, Alipurduar. Two (2) rent receipts have also been filed along with Voter Identify Cards. According to the complainants on perusal of two (2) applications of K.C.C Loan for cultivating potato, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Madarihat transmitted the same to the O.P/bank for sanction of loan on 03.09,2014. Thereafter, the complainant with utmost hope and aspiration approached to the O.P/Allahabad Bank for sanction of the loan. The Manager of O.P/bank also assured the complainants to give loan but on 14.11.2014 he stated to the complainants that K.C.C loan cannot be sanctioned.
As a result, the complainants sustained a huge loss and the complainants have been deprived their living. If the O.P/bank allowed the complainants’ loan, the complainants could get benefit and privilege of cultivation of potato. The complainants are the consumer according to Consumer Protection Act and the O.P/bank had made negligence and deficiency on their part.
Hence, the complainants’ case
The O.P/Bank contested the case by filing Written Version on their behalf denying the case of the complainants. According to O.P the complainant’s case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action. The complainants could not get any protection within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The allegation as alleged by the complainants are vague, false and motivated. The complainants are not the consumers according to C.P. Act. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P/bank. The complainants made no allegation of negligence and deficiency in service against the O.P/bank with regard to the complainants’ account.
According to O.P/bank that there is a circular of NABARD as mentioned by the complainant for making loan to the farmers in the scheme of K.C.C and accordingly the complainants deposited the land record to the O.P/bank but the O.P refused to sanction any loan merely because the complainant having an account with the bank does not make him entitled to loan. The non sanction of loan by the O.P to the complainants cannot at all be construed as negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P/bank. Actually, it is upon the financial institution (herein O.P/bank) to take decision in good faith in the exercise of its bona-fide discretion as to whether it is safe to make advance of public fund to any particular party and to arrive at a decision after examining relevant facts and circumstances including possibility of realization. The complainant No.1 took financial assistance from the O.P/bank for his group being Dalaneta of Jyoti Joint Liability Group (Jyoti J.L.G.). But the group failed to repay the loan sanctioned by them. The O.P/bank tried to one time settlement with the said group . O.P/bank apprehends that there is possibility of misappropriation of public fund had the loan been sanctioned to the complainants. The complainants actually have not hired or availed of service of O.P/bank, even no processing charge was realized from the complainants. There is no question of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P/bank as such the complainants are not entitled to get any compensation as claimed in this case. The complainants’ case is liable to be rejected with cost.
The complainants and the O.P have filed evidence on affidavit and it appears that the said evidence is the re-iterated version of complaint and written version of O.P respectively. The Ld Agents of the complainants and the O.P have filed written argument on their respective cases. Heard them at length.
The documents which have been filed by the complainants and the O.P/bank are marked as Annexure 1, 2, 3.3/1, 4, 4/1, 5, 5/1, 6, 7 and Annexure- A, B, C, D, E and F respectively.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points are necessarily come up for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Has the Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Are the complainants consumers u/s. 2(1) (d) (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants and they are liable in any way?
- Are the complainants entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
POINT NO.1 :-
The complainants and the O.P are residing within the District of Alipurduar. The value of the present complaint is Rs.5, 00,000/- i.e. far less than prescribed limit of this Forum. So, the Forum has every right to try this case.
POINTS NO.2, 3 & 4:-
These points are taken up together for the convenience of discussion.
Admittedly the complainants had applied for loan for the purpose of cultivating of Potato in his land for having K.C.C loan amounting to Rs.50, 000/- on 19.08. 2014. It was alleged by the complainant that the said loan would be taken being a short term credit for cultivating of crops and post harvest expenses as per scheme of ‘ NABARD’ circular No.97/PCD1/0/2012 dated 20.04.2012 wherein land record of cultivating potato for creation of charge of that loan was mentioned and the same was sanctioned by the Assistant Director of Agriculture,Madarihat and transmitted it to the O.P/bank and the complainant deposited the Record of Rights which mentioned in Khatian No.733 and 579, J.L.No.41 under Mouza Paschim Khairbari under P.S Madarihat. Two rent receipts bearing No. Sl. No 9230171 and 9289858 along with Voter I.D Card were deposited. The complainant’s application of K.C.C loan subsequently transmitted to O.P/bank on 03.09.2014 by the Assistant Director of Agriculture for sanction of it. The Manager of O.P/Bank assured the complainants to give loan but subsequently on 14.11.2014 the O.P/bank disclosed the complainants that the said K.C.C Loan cannot be sanctioned.
It has been contended by the complainant that due to non sanction of said loan he could not get the privilege of cultivation of potato and sustained huge loss which could not be repaired, though the complainants claim themselfs to be a consumer u/s. 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
In order to establish their case, the complainants filed Annexure ‘1’ a photocopy of a letter issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Madarihat infavour of complainants. It appears therefrom that the application of the complainant for loan of K.C.C was sent to O.P/Bank. Though it was been filed but nowhere in the said letter it has been mentioned that the K.C.C Loan was sanctioned. Annexure ‘2’ goes to show that it is a certificate which issued by O.P/Bank in respect of a loan in the scheme Jyoti JLG wherein the bank authority have closed the loan account through bank OTS scheme on 16.09.2014 and it has been mentioned therein that the same be treated as no dues in respect of the said loan. Annexure ‘3’,’3/1’, ‘4’ ‘4/1’ are the photo copy of records and rent receipts. Annexure ‘5’ and ‘5/1’ are the Voter I.D.Cards of the complainants. Annexure ‘6’ is a photo copy of an account of the complainant which lying in O.P/Bank. Annexure ‘7’ is the photo copy of the details guide line of NABARD in respect of the loan, in question. Annexure ‘8’ is a photo copy of a letter which sent by the complainant to the O.P/Bank to show that the loan, in question was allowed and they were directed to sign in same paper.
The O.P/Bank clearly admitted about the application of loan of the complainant but they denied that the said application were transmitted to O.P/Bank by the Assistant Director of Agriculture,Madarihat after sanctioning of it or the Manager of O.P/Bank assured to complainants to give loan to them. Fact remains that the application for loan of complainants were submitted by the complainants and the same was transmitted to the O.P/Bank by the Agriculture Development Officer, Madarihat for its consideration. The O.P/Bank alleged that merely because of having an account with the Bank does not make one entitle to loan. According to O.P/Bank it is the financial institution to decide whether the loan is to be provided to the incumbent or not. Non sanction of loan cannot be construed as negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P/Bank. It is the bonafide discretion whether it is safe to make loan of public fund to any particular party and arrive at a decision after examining relevant facts and circumstances including possibility of realization.
The O.P further alleged that the complainant No.1 being Dalaneta (Group leader) of Jyoti Joint Liability Group (Jyoti J.L.G.) availed financial assistance from the O.P/Bank but ultimately, the said loan was repaid by one time settlement with the said group. The O.P/Bank also filed some documents vide Annexure A to F. The O.P/Bank averred that in case the loan had been sanctioned to them, there was the possibility of misappropriation of public fund.
The O.P/Bank strenuously argued that the complainant have not hired or availed any service from the O.P/Bank. Not even any fees for processing of the loan in question was charged and realized from them. There is no question of negligence or deficiency in service and complainants are not at all entitled to get any compensation as claimed in this case.
Having heard the Ld.Agents of both sides and on considering the facts and circumstances as well as the materials on record it appears to us that the complainants have applied for loan. So, mere application of loan does not construed the complainants to be consumers in this case. It is the discretion of the bank to consider wheather complainants are fit to grant loan to them or not. Therefore, the non disbursement of loan would not amount to deficiency in service. There is neither any service nor any consideration in this case.
It is pertinent to mention here that Hon’ble National Commission in a case law published in CPR 575 of 1991 (1 ) (Smt. Asha Sharma…Vs..Union of India & ors) has been pleased to observe that there is no deficiency in service where the Bank did not provide loan to a customer because it is for the bank to satisfy itself whether applicant for bank’s financial assistance was creditworthy & the project to be financed was technically feasible & economically viable.
Therefore, on meticulous scrutiny of the materials on record and the discussion made above, we think that the complainants are not the consumers as inscribed in Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act.,1986 therefore on Attending the facts and circumstances we do not hold good to say that O.P/Bank had made any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants and they are liable in any way.
Thus, these points are decided against the complainants.
We are constrained to hold that the complainants are not entitled to get any relief as sough for in this case.
As such, the case is dismissed.
Hence,
It is ORDERED
that the case being C.C.14 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P without costs.
Let a plain copy of this Final Order be supplied free of cost to the concerned parties/Agents by hand/be sent under Registered with A/D forthwith for information & necessary action.
Dictated & Corrected by me-
