Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/25/2016

Koduru Padmavathi, W/o Venkatesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

K.Chaitanya Kumar

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

 

Date of Filing     :29-02-2016

                                                                             Date of Disposal:31-08-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Thursday, this the  31^st  day of   AUGUST, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

 

C.C.No.25/2016

 

Koduru Padmavathi,

W/o.Venkatesh,

Hindu, aged 47 years, Agriculturist,

Kodurupadu, Nellore Rural Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District.                                                         …..  Complainant

 

Vs.

                                                                           

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of  India,

Indukurupeta – 524314.

Indukurupeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.                     ..… Opposite party

                                                             .       

          This complaint coming on 30-08-2017 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Chaitanya Kumar,  advocate for the complainant and                                                     Sri K. Sesha Reddy, advocate for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, MEMBER)

 

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,03,924/- as compensation to the complainant for causing loss  as the opposite party failed to give the benefits of scheme for the loan account No.11519189906, to direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and to award Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint and submits to allow the complaint.

 

2.  The brief averments of the complaint are as follows that:-

               The opposite party has sanctioned KCC Loan/Crop loan (vide loan account no.11519189906) an amount of Rs.82,000/- on 27-03-2013 to the complainant and issued Kisan Credit  Card cum pass book to the complainant by making necessary  entries on 27-03-2013 and thereafter the complainant has availed the said crop loan for agricultural purpose.  Subsequently, the  Andhra Pradesh State Government announced agricultural debt redemption scheme during the year 2015, directing the all bankers including the opposite party to prepare a list of eligible farmers/agriculturists, who have taken crop loans.  Even though the complainant being an women agriculturist taken crop loan, the opposite party has not taken complainant into consideration for agricultural debt redemption scheme.  The complainant has submitted necessary documents including Aadhaar to the opposite party for considering debt relief but the opposite party did not give any benefit to the complainant though the complainant borrowed for the agricultural purpose and hence as the opposite party has acted for in not giving benefit under the debt relief scheme 2015.  The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party to direct for the taken of relief under the said scheme, 2015 and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

3.   The opposite party filed written version with the following averments that:-

   The complainant availed fish culture loan on 31-10-2007 from the opposite party  bank branch and from time to time the same was renewed and further it is renewed on 27-03-2013 of Rs.82,000/-.  The said fish culture loan does not come under the purview of Debt Relief Scheme announced by the Government of Andhra Pradesh during the year, 2015.  As the complainant borrowed a loan for fish culture, the complainant is not entitled for any relief under the scheme announced in the year, 2015 and as there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  The complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party is not maintainable and submits for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.   On behalf of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 was marked.

5.  On behalf of the opposite party, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 was marked.

          6.    The complainant was examined as PW1 and opposite party was examined as RW1.

7.  Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of Savings Bank Account  No.01170069087 in favour of complainant issued by the opposite party, Ex.A2 is a Photostat copy of  Kisan Credit Card-Pass Book in favour of  complainant issued by the opposite party, Ex.A3 is a Letter  from opposite party to the complainant, Ex.A4 is Letter  from opposite party to the complainant, Ex.A5 is a State Bank of India broucher and Ex.B1 . Appendix AGL-1/3 page 100 of AGR Codified Circular Instructions updated upto 31-07-2005 along with letter addressed to the complainant by the opposite party, Ex.B2 is Photostat copy of G.O.Ms.No.174 issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance (IF) Department..

          8.   On behalf of the both parties, written arguments filed, perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the both parties.

          9.  Arguments on behalf of learned counsels for both parties heard.

 

10. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the act of the opposite party towards complainant is amounts to deficiency   of service?
2. To what relief,  the complainant is entitled?

 

         11. POINT No.1:The learned counsel for the complainant submits by relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5  that the complainant availed agricultural loan and borrowed an amount of  Rs.82,000/-  for agricultural purpose and later the Andhra Pradesh Government announced agricultural debt redemption scheme   in the  year 2015 and as the  complainant  borrowed money for agricultural purposes, the  opposite party did not  extend the benefit under the   scheme  and thus the opposite party committed deficiency   of service towards the complainant and hence as the opposite party failed to give   the  benefits of the scheme, 2015 the complainant filed this complaint claiming damages and submits to allow the complaint with cost.

          On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party submits by relying upon Exs.B1 and B2  that as per Ex.B1, the complainant borrowed loan from the opposite party towards the working capital for fish pond and hence he submits by relying upon Ex.B2 that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.174, Finance (IF) Department dated 14-08-2014 that the loan borrowed  for  establishment of  fish pond is exempted  and the said scheme is not applicable to the complainant and hence as per the G.O. issued by the Government  of Andhra Pradesh and as the  loans which are granted for establishment of  fish ponds and as fisheries are excluded the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party on the  ground of deficiency of service is not maintainable and submits for the dismissal of the complaint against  the opposite party with costs.

          In view of the  arguments submitted by the learned counsels for both parties and as seen from the Ex.B1, the loan was  granted to the complainant  towards  the  working capital for establishment of fish ponds in  Ac.2.00 of land.   The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.174, Finance (IF) Department, dated 14-08-2014, wherein  page-3 it shows as  follows: “ Short term loans sanctioned for meeting working capital needs of horticulture activity, allied activities like fisheries, poultry, dairy etc., and agricultural produce ( pledge) loans including loans  against warehouse receipts, working capital to activities related to indirect finance like fertilizers, etc.,”.

          By relying  upon  the Ex.B2 G.O.Ms.No.174, Finance (IF) Department,   dated 14-08-2014, the loan amount    which  was    borrowed from the opposite party  by the complainant is  for establishment of fish ponds  in her land. As the said loan is excluded under as per in G.O.Ms.No.174/14-08-2014,  we are of the opinion that  not giving the benefit of relief  to the complainant by the opposite party is not amounts to deficiency of service and hence we are of the opinion that the act of the opposite party towards the complainant in not enlarging the benefit under the scheme, 2015  to the complainant is not amounts to deficiency of service.

          By relying  upon the above  said discussion and  facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant filed  by the complaint  against the opposite party  is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service.  In view of the above said discussion, we answer this point  against    the complainant and in favour of the opposite party.

 

          12.     POINT No.2: In view of our answering on point No.1 against the complainant and in favour of the opposite party,  the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party  has to be dismissed.

                   In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances no costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  31^st  day of  AUGUST, 2017.

 

          Sd/-                                                                                              Sd/-

      MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

28-09-2016

Smt.Koduru Padmavathi, W/o.Venkatesh, Agriculturist,  SPSR Nellore District.(Evidence affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party

 

R.W.1  -

11-11-2016

Sri C. Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o.Ramachandra Reddy, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, SPSR Nellore District.

 

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -		Photostat copy of Savings Bank Account  No.01170069087 in favour of complainant issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A2  -	27-03-2013	Photostat copy of  Kisan Credit Card-Pass Book in favour of  complainant issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A3  -	17-08-2015	Letter  from opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A4  -	05-12-2014	Letter  from opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A5  -		State Bank of India broucher.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Ex.B1  -		Appendix AGL-1/3 page 100 of AGR Codified Circular Instructions updated upto 31-07-2005 along with  letter addressed to the complainant by the opposite party.
Ex.B2  -	14-08-2014	Photostat copy of G.O.Ms.No.174 issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance (IF) Department.

 

 

                                                                                                                     Id/-

                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri K. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate, Ramamurthy Nagar, 3rd Main Road,             D.No.16-7-198, 2nd floor,  Nellore Town.
2.	Sri K. Sesha Reddy, Advocate, Nellore.

 

Date when free copy was issued: