Kerala

Wayanad

CC/225/2012

A P Ashraf, Amiyanpoil House, Madakkara, Nenmeni Post. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, SBT Koliyadi Branch. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Dec 2014

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CIVIL STATION ,KALPETTA
WAYANAD-673122
PHONE 04936-202755
 
Complaint Case No. CC/225/2012
 
1. A P Ashraf, Amiyanpoil House, Madakkara, Nenmeni Post.
Wayanad.
Kerala.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, SBT Koliyadi Branch.
Wayanad.
Kerala.
2. The Zonal Officer, SBT Region 2,
Zonal Office, Calicut.
Calicut.
Kerala.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

By Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:

 

The complaint filed against the Opposite party to get cost and compensation for the deficiency of service by Opposite parties.

 

2. Brief of complaint:- The Complainant is an unemployed person. He get an information of the District Industrial Centre that there is a scheme called PMEGP under which loan is available from the banks with subsidy from Kerala Grama Vyavasaya Board and from this any industry can be started.

 

3. Hence the Complainant rushed to 1st Opposite Party and enquired about the scheme and loan procedure for starting a water service station at his family property nearby the road side in Chulliyode town. The 1st Opposite party assured the loan for the above said purpose.

 

4. On the assurance by 1st Opposite party the Complainant filed loan application before the Kerala Khadi Grama Vyavasaya Board and they considered the application and an appointment was fixed on 04.11.2011 from the District Centre for Complainant. Thus the Complainant attended the interview and he was selected for the said scheme and the letter to that effect was given to 1st Opposite Party also. Thereafter when the Complainant approached the 1st Opposite party, 1st Opposite party stated that he should obtain, project report, Building plan, estimate, permit, quotation with a sufficient collateral security in the ownership of complainant itself. So the Complainant submitted all the said documents before the 1st Opposite Party. After one month the 1st Opposite Party intimated the Complainant that the offered landed property is not in his name and the property offered should be in the name of Complainant itself. Thereafter the Complainant registered 10 cents of land in his name from the joined property of his family and submitted to the 1st Opposite party along with encumbrance certificate and all other connected documents very soon. After that the Complainant enquired in to 1st Opposite Party every day about the sanction of loan. The Opposite Party said that all the documents were given to legal officer for scrutiny, after getting the report from the Officer the matter will be decided. But the Complainant intimated the 1st Opposite Party that after complying all the formalities the loan sanctioned letter should reach the Kerala Khadhi Grama Vyavasaya Board, Thiruvananthapuram within 31.03.2012 otherwise no benefit will be received from the board and my dream project may collapse.

 

5. At last on 29.03.2012 1st Opposite party came and inspected the sight and valued the property and prepared report and all the loan papers are given to the Complainant and intimated the complaint to entrust it to the 2nd Opposite party. So the Complainant entrusted the document to the 2nd Opposite party on the next day itself that is on 31.03.2012.

 

6. The 2nd Opposite Party after verification of the documents stated that there is some mistake in the documents and without correcting the defects the loan could not be sanctioned. Even though the 2nd Opposite Party can cure the defect immediately with the help of 1st Opposite Party they could not done so.

 

7. The Application filed before the 1st Opposite Party in the month of October 2011 and the 1st Opposite Party not processed the application within the reasonable time and later forwarded the documents to 2nd Opposite Party with somany defects, due to this the Complainant could not get the loan and thereby the Complainant could not start the business and he lost the project and suffered mental agony hardships and financial losses, and thereby the Complainant prayed before the Forum to direct the Opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- which is spend for loan application process and to pay the cost of the proceedings.

 

8. The notices were served to Opposite parties and Opposite parties filed version and stated in the version that they were not given any assurance regarding the sanction of loan but told him that if all the formalities are complied by the Complainant and after furnishing the sufficient security, if the bank satisfied the documents they will sanction the loan and they admitted that the loan application submitted to Kerala Khadi Grama Vyavasaya Board is forwarded to the 1st Opposite Party and further stated that they already informed the Complainant that the land security offered must be the land where the proposed service station is situated, but the Complainant firstly bought a joint family property, when it was denied, the Complainant brought all the required documents in his name with the document No.913/12 of SRO Sulthan Bathery in the second week of March 2012. Then immeadiately the said documents are handed over to the Advocate but the Complainant produced the back document before the advocate only on 28.03.2012. So the 1st Opposite party got the legal scrutiny report only on 29.03.2012. As per this report the same day itself the 1st Opposite Party has conducted the valuation of the property and the report of the 1st Opposite Party and legal scrutiny report in handed over to the Complainant for submitting before the 2nd Opposite Party and further stated that the Opposite party's not delayed the process in my manner but for getting the sanction from the 2nd Opposite Party within 31.03.2012, they taken utmost care in dealing the matter and there was no deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties.

 

9. After scrutiny of all the documents by the 2nd Opposite party, if it is approved then only the loan can be sanctioned and the 1st Opposite party had not played any foul play and not filed any wrong report to the 2nd Opposite Party. The loan is not approved because of the incomplete documents and further stated that, due to this, no mental agony or financial loss is caused to the Complainant, thus the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and Opposite parties are also not responsible for any loss caused to the Complainant, and further stated that the PMGEP Scheme is extend to 2012-13 years also and if the Complainant wants to proceed with the project he can very well approach the bank with sufficient documents to get the loan. But the Complainant with a detachment with bank and with an adamant stand filed the complaint, and Opposite Party's prayed before the Forum to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to the Opposite parties.

 

10. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 is marked. Ext.A1 is the letter issued by the District Khadi Grama Vyavasaya Office, Kalpetta dated 19.10.2011 as No. W3/469/2008/PMEG. Which shows that the Complainant is called for an interview with District Khadi Grama Vyavasaya Office. Ext.A2 series is the loan proposal KVIB loan application and recommendation letter. which shows that all the formalities are complied by the Complainant and it is recommended to 2nd Opposite Party. Ext.B3 is the lawyer notice issued by T.R. Balakrishnan to the 1st and 2nd Opposite parties. Ext.A4 (a) & (b) is Postal Receipt shows the address of 1st and 2nd Opposite party. Ext.A5 (a) and (b) is AD card received by 1st and 2nd Opposite parties.

 

11. Opposite Party also filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version. He is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 is marked. Ext.B1 is the reply notice given by 1st Opposite party to the Complainant Ext.B2 is the AD card. Ext.B3 is the report regarding the legal scrutiny..

 

12. On considering the complaint, version, affidavit, document and deposition we framed following issues for consideration.

1. Is there is any deficiency of service from the side of Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

 

13. Point No.1:- Complainant contended mainly that the 1st Opposite Party's recommendation note was improper and some mistakes happens in the recommendation notes and there by the 2nd Opposite Party rejected the loan. 1st Opposite Party's version and proof affidavit it is stated that the loan was not sanctioned, due to the lack of sufficient documents and no where it is stated the reason that “the recommendation is time barred”.

 

14. But in the deposition of OPW1. He stated that the documents submitted by the Complainant on 28.03.2012 was sufficient.

 

15. So we are in the opinion that the loan was disallowed not due to the delay caused in submitting all the document but due to the mistake in the recommendation notes.

 

16. There are contradiction in the deposition of OPW1 and in his version. In the deposition it is stated that sufficient document is produced. In the version it is stated that the loan could not be sanctioned, due to lack of sufficient document. So the different version of Opposite Parties Constitute an unfair trade practice and thereby caused deficiency of service by Opposite parties. The point No.1 is found accordingly.

 

17. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against the Opposite parties, 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties liable to pay cost and compensation and the Complainant is entitled for the same.

 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) only to the Complainant which is incurred by the Complainant to process the loan application with sufficient documents and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only as cost of this proceedings to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for whole the amount.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of December 2014.

Date of filing:12.09.2012.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

 

/True copy/

 

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 

 

APPENDIX.

 

Witness for the complainant:

 

PW1. Asharaf Complainant.

 

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Robert S.B.T. Manager, Ernakulam.

 

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Letter dt: 19.10.2011.

A2 series Copy of Loan proposal KVIB Loan application and recommendation letter (16 pages).

A2(a) Letter. dt: 29.03.2012 .

A3. Copy of Lawyer notice dt:28.04.2012.

A4(a) Postal Receipt. dt: 28.04.2012.

A4(b) Postal Receipt. dt:28.04.2012.

A5(a) Acknowledgment

A5(b) Acknowledgment.

 

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

B1. Copy of Notice. dt:11.06.2012.

B2. Acknowledgment.

B3. Letter.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.