BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAMANATHAPURAM
DISTRICT, RAMANATHAPURAM.
C.C. 18/2013
PRESENT; THIRU. M. CHINNAPANDI, B.A.B.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. S.SOUNDARA RAJA, M.A.B.L., : MEMBER NO:1
TMT. STELLAPUSHPARANI, M.S.W.PGDC., : MEMBER NO:2
DATED THIS THE SECOND OF JULY’2015
V. SundaraMoorthy,
No.7/332.A,Netaji Road,
Paramakudi,
Ramanthapuram(Dt). : Complainant
Vs.,
The Branch Manager,Indian Bank
3/547-L,Madurai-Ramanathapuram Road,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram(Dt). : Opposite party
Date of complaint: : 19.03.2015
Counsel for Complainant : Party in person
Counsel for Opposite party : Thiru.M.Murugesan
ORDER : THIRU. M. CHINNA PANDI, PRESIDENT
Points of Consideration :
Whether the complainant is an Agriculturalist entitled to agricultural jewel Loan?
According to the complainant he is one of the account holder in Indian Bank maintaining his SB Account number:539600325 since 1990. approached the bank to avail agricultural jewel loan on 02.05.2014 and produced computerized patta with other necessary documents. But the bank not only refused to grant loan but also failed to give reasons for denial of agricultural jewel loan. The further case of complainant is that manager failed to consider the rules and regulations of the bank and acted at his whims and fancies and their act appalled the complainant to feel mental agony pains suffering. The denial of loan and refusal to assign reason is not only negligence in their duty but also deficiency in service that too after collecting processing fee and appraiser charge by making debit in his account. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get refund of processing fee and appraiser charge with compensation of Rs.75000/- for mental agony pain and suffering.
The OP filed written version contenting the complainant is not an agriculturalist. He has not produced any patta and the patta he allegedly produced is in the name of his grandfather. He has not filed the legal hare certificate and no objection certificate from other legal hair to prove him as owner of agricultural land. The further contention is that no adangal or cultivation account has been produced to show him as agriculturalist. Therefore he was granted loan under non-agricultural scheme. The Reserve Bank of India has given guideline to grant agricultural jewel loan only two farmers as it is “ interest subvention scheme” to avoid funds diversion as the agricultural loan is at lower rate of interest with subsidy.
The complaint filed proof affidavit and has marked EX A1 to A3. The OP bank filed proof affidavit and has marked EXB1 and ExA1 is Xerox copy of the SB Account of the complainant. EX A2 is the Legal notice Dated. 09.05.2014. The EX.A3 is the acknowledgement for the receipt of EX.A2 notice.
As Agricultural jewel loan is granted under the interest subvention scheme, the borrower has of prove that he is an agriculturalist. One has to file patta and adangal to show him as land owner and actually doing cultivation. The above two documents are necessary to prove the borrower as owner of land and agriculturalist. The Bank Officer who sanction loan must satisfy himself that the borrower is an agriculturalist. It is admitted by the complainant that the patta he relies on stood in the name of his grandfather but he has not produced legal hare certificate or no objection certificate from other legal heirs. Though the complainant during his submit that he had earlier availed agriculture loan did not produce any document. Further the RBI has given a guideline for grant of crop loan and agricultural jewel loan only two farmers as it is granted under interest subsidy. As the Complainant has not produced any document to show him as agriculturist the refusal of loan under the above scheme is validly correct. In view of the above discussion it is decided the complainant has not proved that he is an agriculturist and is not entitled to avail agricultural jewel loan and the point is answered accordingly.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.
MEMBER:II MEMBER:I PRESIDENT
