Date of Filing: 18-06-2013
Date of Disposal: 11-09-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member.
Thursday, the 11th day of September, 2014
C.C.NO.107/2013
Between:
M.Venkata Gopal
S/o M.Adinarayana
Cultivation,
r/o Sanjeevapuram Village,
B.K.Samudram Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District. ….. Complainant
Vs.
State Bank of India (A.D.B.)
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Subash Road
Ananthapuramu. …. Opposite party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and Sri N.R.K.Mohan, Advocate for the Opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC) : - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and requested to direct the opposite party to return the tractor-cum-trailer bearing No.AP-024-9092 & 9093.
2. The brief facts of the case are that :- The complainant is an agriculturist by profession and having land to an extent of Acs.5.00 in Sanjeevapuram Village, B.K.Samduram Mandal. The complainant approached the opposite party for financial help for the purchase of tractor-cum-trailor for cultivation. A loan of Rs.4,00,000/- was sanctioned by the opposite party. The complainant was repaying the loan installments regularly. Subsequently, the Government of India has issued G.O. Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme dt.23-05-2008. As per the scheme, the agriculturists, who own less than Ac.5.00 are eligible for loan waiver. The opposite party has approached the complainant requesting the complainant to clear the loan amount in order to return the mortgaged documents. In the process the opposite party informed the complainant that if a sum of Rs.50,000/- is paid, they will give Clearance Certificate to him. As per the advice of the opposite party, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party. Later the opposite party did not return the documents nor given Clearance Certificate and the same was postponed on some pretext or the other.
3. While that is so, the opposite party suddenly went to the land of the complainant and seized the tractor-cum-trailor bearing No. AP-024-9092 & 9093 without any notice or intimation on 10-11-2012. Immediately the complainant approached the opposite party and enquired into the matter and he was informed that as you have not cleared the loan amount, hence the tractor was seized by the opposite party. Then the complainant explained to the opposite party that his loan was waived under the Central Government Scheme, but the opposite party did not care his request. Subsequently the complainant has approached District Legal Services Authority, Ananthapuramu and filed P.L.C.No.19/13 for cancellation. As the opposite party did not come forward, the said petition was closed on 11-03-2013. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and also to order for return of the tractor-cum-trailor to the complainant by the opposite party.
4. Counter filed by the opposite party stating that the allegations made in the complaint are not correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations. The allegation that the complainant is having land to an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sanjeevapuram Village is not correct and he possesses more than Ac.5.00 of land and the same was mortgaged to this opposite party. The allegation that the complainant has approached for a tractor loan and the same was sanctioned is true. The allegation that the complainant has paid some loan installments is also true and further allegation that the Government of India has issued G.O. dt.23-05-2008 is also true. Further the opposite party stated that the loan was taken by the complainant and his father Adinarayana. The applicant i.e. complainant owns Ac.5.23 cents and Adinarayana possesses Ac.5.07 cents which have been mortgaged to the Bank.
5. Further the allegation that the scheme of loan waiver was meant for the persons, who own lands upto Ac.5.00, but not for the persons who own more than Ac.5.00 of land and the further allegation that the complainant approached this opposite party and requested to clear the loan and asked for return of documents is not correct. The further allegation that the opposite party has informed him that he has to pay Rs.50,000/- and he will be given a Clearance Certificate is not true and the allegation that this opposite party did not return the documents nor given any Clearance Certificate and has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other is not correct. Since the complainant did not clear the entire loan, the question of returning the documents or giving Clearance Certificate does not arise.
6. Further allegation that tractor-cum-trailor of the complainant was seized is true and the allegation that it was done without notice or intimation is not correct. The said seizure was done as per the procedure. The allegation that the complainant has approached the opposite party and enquired the matter and they have informed him to clear the loan is true. As the complainant owns land above Ac.5.00 as per the Central Government Scheme, the complainant was not eligible for waiver of loan and the same was explained to the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant has approached District Legal Services Authority is true and as the rules do not permit for loan waiver and the opposite party has not come forward for settlement in District Legal Services Authority. In the above circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as the complainant has to pay some amounts towards loan taken. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. To what relief?
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.A1 & A2 documents. On behalf of the opposite party, evidence on affidavit of the opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 document on behalf of the opposite party.
9. Heard on both sides.
10. POINT NO.1 – The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and he owns land of Ac.5.00 in Sanjeevapuram Village, B.K.Samudram Mandal. The counsel submitted that the complainant approached the opposite party for loan to purchase a tractor-cum-trailor and loan of Rs.4,00,000/- was sanctioned on mortgage of the documents of the complainant and his father. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was paying the loan installments and subsequently Central Government has issued a G.O. Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme dt.23-05-2008 and as per the scheme the persons who own land below Ac.5.00 are eligible for waiver. Subsequently, the opposite party has approached the complainant and requested to clear loan amount for return of the mortgaged documents at that time the opposite party has informed to the complainant that if he pays a sum of Rs.50,000/-, they will give Clearance Certificate to him and as per advice of the opposite party, the complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party. The counsel for the complainant submitted that even after paying the said amount the opposite party did not return the documents nor gave Clearance Certificate and the same was postponed on one pretext or the other.
11. The counsel for the complainant submitted that while that is so the opposite party suddenly went to the land of the complainant and took away the tractor-cum-trailor bearing No. AP-024-9092 & 9093 without any notice or intimation on 10-11-2012. Then immediately the complainant approached the opposite party and enquired into the matter and he was informed by the opposite party that as you have not cleared the loan amount the tractor was seized. Then the complainant explained that his loan amount was waived under Central Government Scheme, but the opposite party did not care to the complainant’s request. The counsel for the complainant submitted that having no other go, the complainant has approached District Legal Services Authority, Ananthapuramu and filed P.L.C.No.19/13 for cancellation of the loan amount. But as the opposite party did not come forward the said petition was closed on 11-03-2013. Further the counsel for the complainant submitted that having no option the complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party claiming Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and also to direct the opposite party to return the tractor-cum-trailor to the complainant as there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, they are liable to pay the said amount.
12. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no dispute with regard to sanction of loan to the complainant and admittedly the complainant has paid some loan installments. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that it is true that Central Government has announced the Loan Waiver Scheme to the agriculturists and as per the scheme the loanees who possess less than Ac.5.00 of land are only eligible under Loan Waiver Scheme and as the complainant possesses land to an extent of Ac.5.23 cents, he does not fall under the scheme. Hence the complainant’s loan was not waived off. Further the counsel for the opposite party argued that it is true that the opposite party has seized the tractor-cum-trailor of the complainant on 10-11-2012 after due process as per procedure. Further the counsel for the opposite party submitted that the complainant’s tractor was seized as the complainant has failed to clear loan installments and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation towards mental agony as claimed by the complainant and they are not liable to return the tractor-cum-trailor to the complainant as claimed and further argued that as the complainant is a defaulter the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the documents, there is no dispute with regard to sanction of loan and there is no dispute with regard to seizure of tractor by the opposite party also. The arguments of the complainant’s counsel is that he owns land to an extent of Ac.5.00 only hence the complainant falls under Central Government Loan Waiver Scheme but the document, which is pledged by the complainant himself, which is marked as Ex.B1 clearly shows that the complainant possesses the land to an extent of Ac.5.23 cents in Sy.Nos.656 & 657. The arguments of the complainant’s counsel that the complainant possess land below Ac.5.00 is not correct as per Ex.B1, which is the Mortgauge Deed executed by the complainant himself. Hence as per the scheme announced by the Central Government the persons who own less than Ac.5.00 are only eligible to loan waiver and the complainant owns land to an extent of Ac.5.23 cents, hence he is not eligible for loan waiver. In the above circumstances, the arguments of the complainant is not tenable and the opposite party has seized the tractor of the complainant rightly as the complainant failed to pay balance loan installments to the opposite party after due process. Hence, we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and they are not liable to pay any compensation towards mental agony for deficiency of service or return of the tractor-cum-trailor to the complainant.
14. POINT NO.2 - In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 11th day of September, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
-NIL- -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Photo copy of petition in PLC No.19/13 filed by the complainant on the file of
District Legal Services Authority, Ananthapuramu.
Ex.A2 - Photo copy of Statement of Account relating to the complainant issued by the
opposite party to the complainant for the period 31-01-2005 to 09-03-2013.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B1 – True copy of Mortgage Deed dt.07-01-2005 executed by the complainant
in favour of the opposite party.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
Typed JPNN
