BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

Wednesday, the 26^th day of June, 2013

CC. No. 47 of 2012

Between:

Pyata Veeresham S/o Ramulu,

Aged about 44 years, Occ: Agriculture and

Centering work, R/o Upparigudem village,

Pulkal Mandal, Medak District.                                               ……Complainant   

                   And

1. The Branch Manager, A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank,

Choutkoor Branch, Pulkal Mandal, Medak District.

2. The General Manager, Grameena Vikas Bank,

Shanthinagar, Sangareddy, Medak District.

3. The Chairman, A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank,

Warangal, A.P.                                                          ……Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 25.06.2013 in the presence of Sri T. Sathyanarayana, Advocate for complainant and M/s Joshi Narayana Rao, Advocate for opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and heard the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per Se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that though the complainant did not avail any crop loan from the opposite party No. 1 bank, the bank sent notices demanding a sum of Rs. 11,734/- on the premise that the complainant borrowed a loan of Rs. 15,000/- in the year 2006. The further case of the complainant is that, in fact he had no land in the year 2006 but he purchased 2 acres in survey No 1330 and 14 guntas in survey No. 680 at his village only in the year 2011 and entered in to an agreement with one Ganapathi Sugar Factory, Fasalvadi, Medak District to obtain crop loan through his account with opposite party No. 1 bank but the said bank objected for the same. The complainant has also alleged that one Suresh, Manager of opposite party No. 1 bank committed fraud in the year 2006 by creating several benami loan transactions and swindled huge monies, and that the complainant is one of the victims of this. For these reasons the complainant, by alleging deficiency of service, has claimed sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. towards damages and costs against the opposite parties No. 1 to 3.

2.                 The opposite party No. 1 bank has filed the counter and denied all the allegations in the complaint by contending that, in fact the complainant has availed ACC loan of Rs. 15,000/- on 03.08.1995 from opposite party No. 1 bank and renewed it on 01.07.1996 but there after failed to renew the same, as such a demand notice was issued to him. As per the opposite party No. 1 bank, to evade repayment of the loan amount due the complainant has filed the present complaint with false and baseless allegations, taking advantage of the death of Mr. Suresh, the then Manager of opposite party No. 1 bank. The opposite party No. 1 bank has also contended that the case is barred by limitation and as such prayed to dismiss the same with costs.

3.           The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 filed a memo and adopted the counter of opposite party No. 1 bank.

4.                During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his chief examination affidavit as PW.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A5 to establish his case. The branch manager of opposite party No. 1 bank has filed his evidence affidavit as RW. 1 in defense.

                     The complainant has filed written arguments. Opposite parties did not file written arguments. Heard both the learned counsel.

5.           Now the point for consideration is that whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and if so to what relief?

Point:

6.            The complainant has set up a case that the opposite party No. 1 bank demanded a sum of Rs. 11,734/- with interest illegally by alleging that he borrowed a crop loan of Rs. 15,000/-, by issuing legal notice, Ex. A1, though in fact he never borrowed any such loan. Ex.A2 is a copy of the reply notice sent by him through his counsel to the opposite party No. 1 bank to the effect of the above said stand taken by him. Ex. A3 & A4 are postal receipts and acknowledgement for Ex. A2 – notice. Ex.A5 is a copy of letter dated 19.01.2012, given by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 bank denying the claim of the bank on the ground that he was not even possessing any land in the year 2006.

7.                Though the complainant has denied and disputed the loan transaction of the year 2006 by alleging that he was not having any land is the said year but purchased land only in the year 2011, he did not file any revenue record to establish the same. There is also no evidence to show that he entered an agreement with one Ganapathi Sugar Factory, Fasalwadi for a crop loan which was to be dealt with through the complainant’s SB account with opposite party No. 1 bank. He did not file either a copy of alleged agreement or at least give his bank details, when the opposite party No. 1 bank has categorically denied of his having any SB account with them.

8.              It is also not known as to why he could not lodge any complaint against one Mr. Suresh, the then manager of opposite party No. 1 bank, although he allegedly committed fraud and siphoned huge amounts of the opposite party No. 1 bank by creating benami loan transactions including that of the complainant. No doubt the complainant has alleged that he sustained huge loss of about Rs. 1,00,000/- during the last 2 years on account of the attitude of opposite party No. 1 bank, in preventing him from borrowing a crop loan from Ganapathi Sugar Factory, Fasalwadi, there is no evidence even with regard to his alleged holding of the land.

9.              It is strange to note that at one breath the complainant contends that he did not borrow any crop loan from opposite party No. 1 bank and at another breath he contends that he is a consumer of the bank under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus the stand taken by the complainant is self contradictory and weakens his case. To elaborate further, if the complainant did not borrow any loan from the opposite party No. 1 bank, he cannot claim to be a consumer and that if he is a consumer, the bank has got every right to recover the same by issuing a legal notice. Viewing from any angle, the case of the complainant has no legs to stand.     

10.              It is further to be noted that when the opposite party No. 1 bank issued demand notice, Ex.A1, the complainant did not choose to approach an ombudsmen of the bank for redressal but instead directly approached this Forum which is certainly fatal to his case. In the circumstances the opposite party No. 1 bank has, in our opinion, rightly contended that it has every right to recover the outstanding dues of the crop loan and as such the demand notice was issued to the complainant and that only to evade its repayment he filed the present case by taking undue advantage of the death of Mr. Suresh, the then manager of opposite party No. 1 bank.

11.              Though the demand notice Ex. A1 was issued by the opposite party No. 1 bank on 21.02.2006, the complainant has filed the present case on 20.09.2012, i.e. after more than six years, by challenging the contents there in. The period of limitation is 2 years to file a complaint from the date of cause of action as per Sec 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus the complainant is barred by limitation.

12.              In view of the aforesaid discussion we hold that the complaint is devoid of any merits either on facts or in the eye of law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

                   The point is answered accordingly against the complainant.

13.              In the result, the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-.

                    Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 26^th day of June, 2013.

           Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

                   LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                              WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                                   For the opposite parties:-

                               Sd/-                                                    sd/-

                     LADY MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT 

Copy to:

1. The complainant
2. The opposite parties
3. Spare Copy.