BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) SANGAREDDY, MEDAK DISTRICT.
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Wednesday, the 22nd day of April, 2009
CC.No.39 of 2008
Between:
A. Prasanthlal S/o Narayanlal,
Aged about 21 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Narayanakhed Village and Mandal,
Medak District. … Complainant
And
- The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Narayankhed Branch of Narayankhed Mandal,
Medak District.
2. The District Collector, Medak District
At Sangareddy.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Meteor,
Medak at Sangareddy.
….Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 02.04.2009 in the presence of Sri. Ch. Baswaraj, advocate for complainant and Sri. Anantha Rao Kulkarni, advocate for opposite parties No. 1 and Sri. K. Narsing Rao,Ggovernment Pleader for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, upon hearing 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 Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party No.1 to pay sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,
-2-
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, expenses for collecting documents Rs.5,000/- and towards costs Rs.5,000/-.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1). The complainant was a cable operator in Narayankhed Mandal and is a permanent resident of Narayankhed town, Medak district. Government of Andhra Pradesh lunched a scheme to provide employment to unemployed youth, called RAJIV YUVA SHAKTHI SCHEME, in the year, 2007. The complainant applied through MPDO at Narayankhed for sanction of Milk Business by selecting him in the said scheme. The committee members of the scheme selected the complainant and forwarded to opposite party No. 2 for approval of the selection on 12.11.2007 and gave a direction to opposite party No. 1 to grant loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and also intimated to opposite party No.3 on 02.02.2008 under the scheme. The opposite party demanded the complainant to complete the formalities including production of no dues certificate from SBH, DCC Bank, Grameena Vikas Bank. By completing all the formalities, the same was given to the opposite party No.1 on 07.12.2007. Opposite party No. 1 refused to give loan stating that the complainant does not hold agricultural land and patta pass book and title deed which were shown to opposite party No. 1 stand in the name of his father. Opposite party No. 1 suggested the complainant to apply for loan in cream separator and milk checking machine under the above said scheme. Accordingly the complainant applied and the same was forwarded to opposite party No. 2. The committee members of the scheme forwarded it to opposite party No. 1 for loan but opposite party No. 1 refused, stating that the scheme period was closed. The act of opposite party No. 1 is negligent, due to which the complainant lost his earlier job of cable operator and spent more than Rs.5,000/- for collecting all documents as demanded by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, as such the complainant claims Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.1,00,000/- the loan amount and Rs.5,000/- for costs of the complainant against opposite party No. 1 only. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are made as formal parties. Hence the complaint to direct opposite party No. 1 to pay to the complainant Rs.4,10,000/-.
2). The compliant is resisted by opposite party No. 1 by filing a counter to the following effect:
It is true that Government of Andhra Pradesh launched a scheme called RAJIV YUVA SHAKTHI in the year, 2007 to provide employment to unemployed youth and the complainant applied for sanction of milch animal (Dairy farm) but not milk business. The bank has received proceedings No. 26/02 METEOR/RYS/2007,dt 12.11.2007 from District Collector & Chairman, METEOR , Sangareddy regarding consent to the applicant under the said programme subject to fulfillment of bank terms and conditions. Accordingly opposite party No.1 has examined the documents as per
-3-
guidelines of the NABARD. As per that, the applicant was not holding agricultural land in his name for fodder and grass to feed the animals as such opposite party No. 1 has returned the application to concerned office on 19.12.2007. The applicant filed a title deed No. Y465657 belonging to his father, namely Narayan S/o Permaiah agricultural land Sy.No. 77/5 extent Ac 1-00 gts situated at Goudaugam Manoor Mandal, Medak District. As the father is not applicant under this scheme, the same is not considered. Opposite party No. 1 is in no way concerned about selecting the name of the complainant by the members of the scheme and opposite party No. 2 approving the same etc. After verification of the documents submitted by the complainant, concerned office was informed that the applicant was not holding agricultural land in his name. Opposite party No. 1 does not admit that it has suggested the complainant to apply loan for cream separator and milk checking machine under the above scheme and that he applied but opposite party No. 1 refused to sanction loan when it was forwarded to it. No such suggestion was given and it is a concocted story. There is no negligence of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 does not admit that the complainant is entitled to Rs.4,10,000/- under various heads as contended in the complaint.
The aim and object of the scheme is to provide assistance to unemployed youth, where as the complainant herein is already employed as cable operator in Narayankhed and earning good income from the said business. The said fact was not revealed by him before the interview board as well as bankers. On this count also the complainant is not eligible for the loan. He has mislead the bank by suppressing facts. The complainant and his father misbehaved with the manager and field officer of opposite party No. 1 bank and used filthy language in the bank premises. The applicant’s father threatened the manager and the field officer in the bank if loan is not sanctioned to the complainant, which was reported by the manager to Narayankhed police. The complainant is not a consumer. There is no relationship for him with opposite party No. 1. Sanction letter was never given by opposite party No.1 to the complainant. The complainant has made a false claim to enrich himself at the cost of nationalized bank. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with costs.
Opposite party No. 3 has filed a counter which is adopted by opposite party No. 2 under a memo. The counter is to the following effect:
3). RYS programme is being implemented with effect from the year, 2004-05 as per Government instruction to provide self employment to the unemployed youth. The eligibility criteria of the RYS programme is as follows:
a. The Candidate must be a Resident of Medak District.
b. Age group : between 18-35 years.
c. Educational Qualification: SSC pass/fail
d. Annual Income of the family: below Rs.50,000/-
e. Community : Open to all Categories.
-4-
4). The complainant applied for loan under RYS programme for the year, 2007-08 at Narayankhed Mandal (MPDO). He was selected for establishment of dairy unit with the project cost of Rs.1,00,000/- along with the bank manager consent letter for financing to the unit (the banker is one of the mandal level committee members for selection of beneficiary). After receiving the mandal level selection committee proposal, it was approved by district level sanction committee for the year, 2007-08. After approval of the committee the required documentation have been completed by the beneficiary and eligible 20% subsidy i.e. an amount of Rs.20,000/- was released for office of opposite party No. 3 in favour of the beneficiary vide Proc. No. 22/02/RYS/2007,dt 12.11.2007 of District Collector / Chairman. The details of the cost of unit is as follows:
1. Name of the Unit : Dairy
2. Unit Cost : Rs. 1.00 lakh
3. Eligible Subsidy : 20% on unit cost.
4. Beneficiary contribution : 10% on unit cost.
5. Bank loan : 70% on unit cost
Total unit cost : Rs. 1.00 Lakh.
5). After receiving the subsidy amount, the banker returned the subsidy amount to office of opposite party No. 3 on 19.12.2007 through letter No. F/Adv/RYS/113 stating the beneficiary does not have any agricultural land for the fodder and grass to feed the milch animals. There after the candidate requested opposite party No. 3 on 05.01.2008 to change the unit from dairy to purchase cream separator machine and milk business and accordingly proposal was sent to the bank manager SBH, Narayankhed to give consent as requested by the candidate, but no such consent has been received from the banker. The complainant himself stated in the complaint that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are formal parties and no relief is claimed against them. The complaint may therefore be dismissed against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.
6). Evidence affidavit of complainant and opposite party No. 1 filed. Exs. A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Exs. B1 and B2 are marked on behalf of the opposite party No. 1. Arguments of both sides heard.
7). The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- etc., against the opposite party No. 1 as claimed in the complaint?
-5-
Point:
8). The case of the complainant is that he has been working as cable operator in Narayankhed Mandal, Medak District and after the Andhra Pradesh Government lunched RAJIV YUVA SHAKTHI SCHEME in the year, 2007 he applied loan for milk business under the scheme and he was interviewed by the selection committee along with others and selected him and some others and sent the selected list to opposite party No. 2 for approval and directed opposite party No. 1 to grant loan of Rs.1,00,000/- . It is his further case that as demanded by opposite party No. 1 he has completed the formalities including production of no dues certificate from the other banks in Narayankhed town, in spite of it opposite party refused to grant loan on the ground that the complainant does not possess agricultural land and the pass book and title deed book which are shown to the bank are in the name of his father and suggested the complainant to apply for loan in cream separator and milk checking machine under the RAJIV YUVA SHAKTHI SCHEME and accordingly when the complainant applied for loan under the above scheme for the above said purpose, again opposite party No. 1 refused to grant loan on the ground that the scheme period was over. According to the complainant the Act of opposite party No. 1 is negligent due to which the complainant lost his earlier job of cable operator and spent more than Rs.5,000/- for collecting all documents and therefore claims a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in addition to loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, expenses of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- in connection with this litigation. But according to opposite party No. 1 the complainant applied for sanction of loan for miltch animal (Dairy form) but not milk business and as per the terms and conditions of the bank, for grant of loan applied for by the complainant he must hold agricultural land. But the complainant has not produced any proof to show that he holds agricultural land and the pattadar pass book and titled deed book which are shown by him to the bank stand in the name of his father, therefore the complainant is not entitled for the loan applied for. It is the further case of opposite party No. 1 that it has never suggested the complainant to apply for loan for cream separator and milk checking machine under the scheme. According to opposite party No. 1 bank, when it has informed the complainant that loan cannot be granted under the scheme for dairy form, the complainant himself applied for loan for cream separator and milk checking machine but by the time he applied for it, the scheme period was closed therefore opposite party No. 1 could not consider his application as such there is no negligence at all on the part of opposite party No. 1.
9). The defense taken by the Opposite party No. 3 which is adopted by opposite party No. 2 is almost similar.
10). To prove the case the documents marked by both the parties are:
-6-
Ex.A1 : Letter of opposite party No. 3 to opposite party No. 1 forwarding the loan application of the complainant for its consent under the RAJIV YUVA SHAKTHI PROGRAMME 2007-08 subject to fulfillment of bank terms and conditions.
Ex.A2 : Proceedings of opposite party No. 2 in his capacity as chairman METEOR approving the list of persons selected by the committee under the scheme for sanction of loan.
Ex.A3: Residential certificate of complainant issued by Thalsildar, Narayankhed Mandal.
Ex.A4 : Letter of opposite party No. 1 to the other banks in Narayankhed town for issue of no dues / no objection certificate.
Ex.A5: Xerox copy of list of persons selected by the committee members for loan under the scheme.
Ex.A6 : Xerox copies of titled deed book and pattadar pass book of Narayana (Father of the complainant).
Ex.B1: Xerox copy of literature about NABARD.
Ex. B2 : Complaint copy sent by opposite party No. 1 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayankhed police station against the father of the complainant.
11). At the out set it is to be seen that the persons entitled to apply under the scheme are those who are unemployed youth. But the complainant herein says that he has been working as cable operator and earning and now he lost his earnings in that job as opposite party No.1 refused to sanction loan under the scheme. When he was earning as cable operator, he was not unemployed youth to reap the benefits under the scheme. Therefore on this ground the complainant cannot maintain this complaint.
12). Ex. A1 clearly shows that opposite party No. 3 has stated therein that the forwarding of loan application of the complainant was for consent of opposite party No. 1 under the scheme subject to fulfillment of bank terms and conditions. According to opposite party No. 1, to consider the application of a person for grant of loan for dairy farm , holding agricultural land by such person is mandatory and as the complainant has not produced any proof that he was holding agricultural land, he is not entitled for loan under the scheme. It is not the case of the complainant that he holds agricultural land. Therefore the refusal of opposite party No. 1 to grant loan to the complainant for dairy farm cannot be said to be any negligent act. The allegation of the complainant that opposite party No. 1 suggested him to apply for loan under the scheme for cream separator and milk checking machine is not proved, inspite of denial of the said allegation by opposite party No. 1. It is not the case of the complainant that the contention of opposite party No. 1 that by the time he applied for loan for cream separator and milk checking machine the scheme period was not closed as stated by opposite party No.1.As the complainant is not an unemployed youth he is
-7-
not at all entitled to apply for any kind of loan under the scheme. He is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties.
13). Therefore in view of the discussion supra it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1 as alleged by him. Unjustly he wanted to derive benefit under the scheme, though to his knowledge he is not entitled, as such latches are on his part. In the circumstances it is held that he is not entitled for any compensation or loan amount or expenses etc. Point is answered against the complainant.
14). In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 22nd day of April, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1) The Complainant
2) The Opp.Parties
3) Spare copy copy delivered to the Complainant/
Opp.Parties On ___________
Dis.No. /2009, dt.
