Per Hon'ble Dr. S.K. Kakade, Presiding Member

1. This is a complaint filed by an agriculturist consumer, afarmer, against a bank providing loans and one of the experts in the plantation and cultivation of Stevia, a herbal plant used for medicinal purposes, alleging deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice by the bank as well as the expert firm Parnanetra Marketing Private Limited through its director,seeking compensation for loss in plantation and cultivation of Stevia plants.
2.  Brief facts of this complaint are as follows.

The complainant, Mr. Loknath Hallosingh Gajendra, residing at B1, Vastushilpa Nagar, Katol Road, Nagpur 440013, is an agriculturist and now a farmer by occupation after his voluntary retirement in 2003, from Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a government of India undertaking.  Opponent no.1 is the Branch Manager, Shri. Abhay Bapat, The Karnataka Bank Limited, Gandhinagar Branch, Nagpur, the Opponent No.2 is the Managing Director / CEOof the Karnataka Bank Limited from Mangalore, Karnataka, address- Post Box no.599, Mahaveera Circle, Kankanady, Mangaluru – 575002. And Opponent No. 3 is Shri. Shitanshu Mahesh Joshi, Managing Director of Parnanetra Marketing Pvt. Ltd. address – Plot no.36, Govt. Press Employees Co-Operative Housing Society, Dabha, Nagpur 440 023.The complainantpurchased agricultural land in the year 2008-09 at village Mahadulla, Tahsil- Parseoni, District Nagpur.The complainant was looking for an advisor so as to cultivate his land by using modern techniques of agriculture and he came across one, Shri Shitanshu Mahesh Joshi, Managing director of Parnanetra Marketing Pvt. Ltd, who convinced the complainant about the benefits and profitabilityof the plantation and cultivation of the Stevia plant. Mr. Joshi also handed over a detailed project proposal to the complainant and with further negotiations, the complainant decided to go ahead with the project proposal. Accordingly, Mr. Joshi assured the complainant to help in obtaining a loan from the Karnataka Bank and thus the three parties signed a tripartite agreement regarding the plantation and cultivation of Stevia, obtaining a loan from the Karnataka Bank by mortgaging the agricultural land of the complainant.

3.  Opponent no. 1 sanctioned the loan amount of Rs. 21, 25, 000/- vide sanction letter dated 11^thAugust 2012 as a term loan for agricultural land development for Stevia cultivation. The relevant documents necessary for obtaining a loan like the 7/12 extract and the copy of the sale deed executed of the land purchased in favour of the complainant were collected from the complainant by Mr. Joshi and due verification was carried out before sanctioning the loan. After the loan was sanctioned, it came to the notice of the complainant that the branch manager of Karnataka Bank had released a major amount of loan Rs. 13, 64,000/- in favour of Shri. Shitanshu Mahesh Joshi, when as per the tripartite agreement the dispersal of the loan was to be released according to the stages of plantation and cultivation of Stevia. Actual plantation and cultivation did not progress as per the proposal. Further Mr. Joshi also assured the complainant to help in bringing another project from the National Horticultural Board in which around 40% subsidy of the project cost would be available but the same could not get materialized.  After experiencing the unfair practice by Mr. Joshi as well as the officers of the bank, the complainant remained unwell for a long time and suffered a heart problem for which he underwent cardiac bypass surgery and hence was unable to work afterward in his agricultural field. The complainant then filed a complaint against the opposite parties before Hon’ble JMFC at Nagpur, further also filed a consumer complaint before this commission in the year 2015 with a prayer that the opposite parties be declared as deficient in services and prayer to direct them to pay compensation of Rs. 50, 71,091/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the filing of the complaint to the realization.  The complainant calculated the total claim amount to Rs 98, 71,091/-.
4. After the admission of the complaint in 2015, all three opposite parties were duly served notice of the complaint.  The opposite party no. 1, thebranch manager, Shri Abhay Bapat of Karnataka Bank Limited, Nagpur, was duly represented by an advocate, filed a reply / written statement (WS) in the defense of opponent no. 1.  In the WS, opponent number 1, specifically taken the plea that the Managing Director of Karnataka Bank Limited is not involved in the day to day affairs of the bank and hence he is an unnecessary party as opponent no. 2.  Despite duly served, opponent no. 3 was not represented in this commission and hence the commission passed anExparte order against opponent no.3. During the further course of proceedings before this Commission, opponent no. 1 did not file an evidence affidavit as well as notes of argument, and nobody represented the opponent no. 1 on several previous dates of proceedings. In view of the complaint being filed way back in 2015, Commission decided to hear this complaint finally and so the matter was taken up for the final hearing.  Advocate for the complainant advocate Mrs. Anuradha Deshpande advanced arguments on behalf of the complainant. 
5. We heard the submissions and arguments advanced by the learned advocate of the complainant and perused the record.Considering submissions of the complainant’s advocate,  documents filed on record, and the scope of the complaint, the following points arise for our determination, and our findings thereon are noted as against them for the reasons herein below:

POINTS:

REASONS:

6. AS TO POINT NO. 1: “CONSUMER’

Learned advocate for the complainant invited our attention to the documents filed on record, sanctioning and disbursement of a term loan of Rs. 21, 25000/- by the opposite party no. 1, for the cultivation of stevia plants as per the tripartite agreement between the complainant, opposite party no. 1 and 3.  The receipts of payment to the opposite party no. 3, Parnanetra Marketing Private Limited, are filed on record.  In view of these documents, it is clear that the complainant availed banking services of opposite party no. 1, Karnataka Bank Limited, and opposite party no. 3,Parnanetra Marketing Private Limitedhas provided services to the complainant by accepting consideration.  Hence the complainant is the consumer of opposite parties no. 1 and 3.  Since the opposite Party no. 2 is the Managing Director of Karnataka Bank Limited, even though he is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the bank, being a superior authority of the opposite party no. 1, the complainant is the consumer of both, opposite party no. 1 and 2. We answer POINT no. 1 as AFFIRMATIVE.

7. AS TO POINT NO.2: “DEFICIENCY

Learned advocate for the complainant, advocate Mrs. Anuradha Deshpande, submitted that complainant is an agriculturist who opted for a term loan from the bank, Karnataka Bank Limited, branch Nagpur for the cultivation of stevia plants on his farm.  He hired the services of an expert in the field of stevia plantation, Mr. Shitanshu Joshi, director of ParnanetraMarketing Private Limited. The learned advocate further submitted that,

1. Leaves of the stevia plant, areconverted into powder after drying which is used as a sweetener that is calorie-free, and hence it has medicinal purposes. Hence, the steviaplantation is a profitable plantation, the complainant decided to venture into it.
2. Mr. Shitanshu Joshi provided the necessary expertise for the plantation of stevia.  As per his advice, the complainant signed the tripartite agreement with Karnataka Bank Limited and his firm Parnanetra Marketing Private Limited. The complainant also obtained a loan by mortgaging his farm towards the loan.
3. The Karnataka Bank Limited on its own advanced Rs. 13, 64,000/- to Mr. Shitanshu Joshi in two installments without consulting the complainant.
4. Due course of time, it was noticed by the complainant that Mr. Shitanshu Joshi has not provided his services for the cultivation of stevia plants, and actually, no cultivation was done.  No stevia saplings were provided by the opposite party no.3 which resulted inloss to the complainant.
5. According to the inquiry conducted by the Department of Agriculture on the complaint filed by the complainant, Karnataka Bank Limited and Parnanetra Marketing Private Limited are together responsible for deceiving the complainant since the cultivation of stevia was not at all done on the farm of the complainant. Reference: letter no. 5255 of 2015 dated 10^th September 2015, submitted to the Collector of Nagpur by the District Superintendent, Department of agriculture Nagpur. Page no. 3 of the report.
6. According to the calculation of the loss by chartered accountant Mr. Patil Gajanan Sudhakar of Nagpur, which the complainant suffered, certificate dated 2^ndJuly 2015, the complainant suffered in total loss of Rs. 98,71,091/-,which includes the bank loan outstanding as of 11^thJune 2015,  Rs. 14, 95, 061/-,  loss of income for 2 years Rs. 21,45,000/-, loss suffered due to non-compliance with the project –  so, non-availability of the subsidy from NHB (National Horticulture Board), Rs. 11,50,000/- ( 40% of the project cost)  and the treatment expenditure of health problems that the complainant suffered Rs. 48,00,000/- reference document pages no. 141, 142.
7. The learned advocate referred to the citation, Jivan Lal Verma vs. Kishan Agrotek, III (2020) CPJ 19 (NC), in which the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered to refund of the consideration amount since the subsidy could not be availed by the complainant due to deficient services by the respondent.
8. Advocate for the complainant prayed for declaring the opposite parties as deficient in services andguilty of unfair trade practices, and awarding the compensation as prayed in the prayer. 

8. On perusal of the reply filed by opponent no. 1, we noted the following defenses.

1. The branch manager of Karnataka Bank Limited, Gandhinagar branch, Nagpur has always represented and acted on behalf of Karnataka Bank Limited and hence this reply represents the reply of Karnataka Bank Limited and not that of Mr. Abhay Bapat as a person.
2. The loss caused if any to the complainant is due to the carelessness and negligent behaviour/act of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Karnataka Bank Limited.
3. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, though the complainant had obtained a loan foragricultural purposes from the opposite party no. 1.
4.  It is denied that Mr.Shitanshu Joshi, director of Parnanetra Marketing Private Limited has good contact and relation with the bank specifically with Shri Abhay Bapat. Relations between the branch manager, opponent no.1, Mr. Abhay Bapat is whollyprofessional, and Karnataka Bank Pvt.  Limited is a very reputed Bank adhering to strict principles as provided by the Reserve Bank of India.
5. It is true that Karnataka Bank Limited through its branch manager was one of thesignatories, to the tripartite agreement executed between the three parties on 27^th June 2012, the Term loan was sanctioned to the complainant on the basis of mortgage of land andthe surety Mrs. Swati Loknath Gajendra, term loan of Rs. 21, 25,000/- was sanctioned on 10^thof August 2012, and the same was accepted by the complainant. Thesaid loan was sanctioned by higher authorities of the Karnataka Bank Limited and not by the branch manager in his Individual capacity.
6. Thedisbursements of the amounts to Mr.Shitanshu Joshi were done as per the instructions from the complainant and all the withdrawal vouchers were signed by the complainant.  And that there is no adverse role of Shri. Bapat, then branch manager.
7. The allegations made by the complainant against Mr. Bapat and further complaints filed against him at the police station are unfortunate and specifically denied.
8. Karnataka Bank Limited has already filed the application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the complainant and the CO borrower for recovery of Rs. 16,45,061/-,  this case is registered as OA no. 155 of 2015 which is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
9. The present complaint is barred by limitation, as the complaint was filed in 2015 that was after the limitation period of 2 years was over.
10. The complainant also had approached Banking Ombudsman by filing a complaint in the present subject matter and the same was rejected by the Banking Ombudsman in favour of opponent no. 1 and 2.
11. That the Managing director of Karnataka Bank Limited is an unnecessary party that was joined by the complainant as opposite party no.2 since the Managing Director is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of office branches spread all over India.
12. Finally, it is prayed that the present complaint be dismissed witha heavy cost as Karnataka Bank Limited has not followed unfair trade practices in the present matter. 

9. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for complainant and going through the documents filed on record, we note our observations as follows,

1. The complainant had to approach JMFC court for seeking directions to the district collector as well as district superintendent of police, for admitting complaints/ FIR against the bank officials and ParnanetraMarketing Private Limited. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nagpur dated 14^th September 2015 directed the police PSO of police station Ambazari to register the case as FIR and investigate the complaint filed by the complainant, by any competent police officer.  Reference page no. 15, evidence affidavit by the complainant.
2.  The report and letter addressed to the district Collector of Nagpur dated 10^th September 2015 by the District Superintendent, Department of Agriculture Nagpur on page no. 3,  reported that Karnataka Bank Limited Nagpur and Parnanetra Marketing Pvt. Limited, Nagpur together they have deceived the complainant Mr. Loknath Gajendra,Jayaswal.
3. Letters were issued by the collector of Nagpur toTahsildar, Nagpur, the District Manager of the Bank, and the District Superintendent of Police, dated 28^thSeptember 2015 to enquire into the unfair trade practices by private banks and private expert agencies who signed tripartite agreements.
4. It is noted that the loan was sanctioned by Karnataka Bank Limited after signing the tripartite agreement, on 10^thAugust 2012 and communicated tithe complainant on the next day.  On the very next day, the amount of Rs. 13, 64,000/- was transferred to the account of Parnanetra Marketing Private Limited, the date of transaction 11^thAugust 2012, without seeking authority to transfer the amount from the complainant.
5. In view of the non-availability of the electricity connection due to technical problems at MSEB, furtherplanting and cultivation of stevia were difficult and hence it was decided that the aforesaid project for stevia cultivation cannot be executed in time. Opposite party no. 3, Mr.Shitanshu Joshi signed an Undertaking - Memorandum of understanding that the amount transferred to him Rs. 9.95 Lakh and Rs.3.69 Lakh will be refunded to the bank before 31^st of March 2013 and further Rs. 1.5 Lakh amount with interest will be refunded by Mr. Loknath Gajendra before the same date towards the closure of loan account no. A/c PSTL/ 183.  This MOU was signed on date 14^th January 2013 by the complainant Mr. Loknath Gajendra andMr. Shitanshu Joshi of Parnanetra Marketing Pvt. Limited, Nagpur.  Reference page no. 81 of Evidence documents by the complainant.
6.  The opponent Bank also wrote Letters to Mr.Shitanshu Joshi, Director of ParnanetraMarketing Private Limited requesting him to deposit back the amount transferred to him as per the undertaking given to the bank by Mr.Shitanshu Joshi on 20^thJune 2013, two such letters on record dated 28^th August 2013 and 24^thSeptember 2013.
7.  In view of the documents available on record, we are of the opinion that Karnataka Bank Limited, through its then-manager Shri. Abhay Bapat is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.  On perusal of the documents filed by both parties, it can be inferred that Karnataka Bank Limited did not follow the terms of the tripartite agreement, that the disbursements wereto be made by the bank only after the inspection of the farm, and based on the stage of cultivation. Also, transferring a major amount to the account of Mr.Shitanshu Joshi on the day of sanctioning of the loan, is unfair trade practice. 
8. In view of the above discussion, it can be very well informed that the Karnataka Bank Nagpur bench was deficient in providing services and guilty of unfair trade practices.  We answer POINT no. 2 A as AFFIRMATIVE. 
9. The opposite party no. 3, Mr.Shitanshu Joshi of ParnanetraMarketing Private Limited definitely indulged in unfair trade practices.  Though initially, Mr. Joshi provided the necessary services, likewriting the proposal forthe stevia plantation for loanand signing the tripartite agreement, after collecting the amount from the bank, he failed to provide the essential support for the plantation and cultivation of stevia.  It was only after around 1 year, he could find the reason for not providing support, that the electricity connection was not available on the farm and it was difficult to obtain one from MSEB due to Technical difficulties.  Afterward, though Mr. Joshi provided MOU to undertake repayment of the consideration amount, to date he has not done so.  This amounts toa deficiency in service.  We find that there are many other complaints by farmers against him filed with the collector. In view of the documents on record, and the above discussion, we declare that Mr.Shitanshu Joshi is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.  We answer POINT no. 2 B as AFFIRMATIVE.

10. AS TO POINT NO. 3: RELIEFS

After going through the entire anatomy of the present dispute, it is gathered that a retired senior citizen of India, purchases land for entering into farming, and enters into an agreement with a reputed bank and so-called expert, to obtain a loan for stevia plantation and cultivation after mortgaging the land purchased from life’s saving, that turns out to be a nightmare for him. For the unfair trade practices of the bank officials and the marketing company like Parnanetra Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the complainant had to run from pillar to post, filing several applications with authorities like Lokayukta, Collector, police authorities, and above all, seeking directions from the officer like Collector/ Superintendent of Police to junior officers/ police station, to register complaints, filing complaint case before JMFC. According to us, the complainant has taken all efforts for the decade since 2012, no wonder why he would have suffered from cardiac (Heart) problems. We appreciate the efforts and tough fight by the complainant.

11. The complainant has prayed for granting the claim as per the claim statement submitted. The claim statement is as follows,

Considering the gravity of the deficiency in service that leads to loss to the complainant, the complainant is definitely entitled to relief.  The aim of the compensation is to place the complainant in the financial position as before, so needs reimbursement for the expenditure and compensation for loss suffered by the complainant. According to us, the opposite parties should compensate the complainant, so that, the outstanding loan is closed with the release of land from the mortgage. The compensation should also include reimbursement for the loss of crop and expected income over the period of 5 years, the period of the term loan. The opposite party no. 3, should refund the amount transferred with the rate of interest @ 13 % per annum, which is the bank interest for the term loan. There needs amount to be paid as compensation for physical and mental agony by the opposite parties to the complainant. We answer POINT no.3 as AFFIRMATIVE.

12. AS TO POINT NO. 4: What Order?

In view of the discussion above under point no.1, 2 - A and 2- B, and 3, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Consumer Complaint is partly allowed with cost quantified to Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties jointly and severally, to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2. It is declared that opposite parties no. 1, 2, and 3 have indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
3. The opposite party no.3. Mr. Shitanshu Joshi of Parnanetra Marketing Pvt. Ltd. is hereby directed to refund the amount to the Karnataka Bank Ltd, transferred to him, Rs. 13, 64,000/- with interest @ 13 % per annum from 11^th August 2012, date on which the amount was transferred by the bank to his account, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
4. The opposite party no.1 and 2, are hereby directed to accept the amount as specified in point no.3, towards the closure of the disputed account of the loan given to the complainant.
5. The opposite parties no. 1, 2, and 3 are directed to pay jointly and severally to the complainant, Rs. 18, 00,000/- which is the outstanding loan amount due to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 and 2 are directed to accept the balance outstanding amount due to the loan, out of this amount, towards the closure of the loan after the amount is received from opposite party no.3 as specified in point no.3 of this order, remaining amount if any is to be returned to the complainant.
6. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to release the complainant’s land from mortgage, after the due closure of the loan and issue NOC to the complainant.
7. The opposite parties no. 1, 2, and 3 are directed to pay jointly and severally to the complainant, Rs. 10, 00,000/- as compensation for the expenditure on farm preparation and the loss of crop and income from the stevia cultivation.
8. The opposite parties no. 1, 2, and 3 are directed to pay jointly and severally to the complainant, Rs. 5, 00,000/-, (Rs. Five Lakh only) for physical and mental harassment suffered by the complainant.
9. The above order as per points 5,7 and 8 to be complied with by the opposite parties no.1, 2, and 3 within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amounts will carry interest @ 12 % per annum till realization.
10. Copy of this order to be given to all the parties free of cost.