BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Present : Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Senior Member/Lady Member

  Sri. G. Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR)

                 Male Member

Thursday, the 07^th day of October 2010

C.C. No. 67 of 2009

Between:

B.Krishna S/o Laxmaiah, aged about 50 years,

Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4-6-5, Indira Colony,

Sangareddy town, District: Medak.

…..Complainant

And

1. The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank,

Branch: Sangareddy, District: Medak.

2. The Nodal Officer (District Collector),

Medak at Sangareddy. (OP No.2 is amended

as per orders passed in I.A.No.8/2010,

dated 28-04-2010).

….Opposite parties

         This case came up for final hearing before us on 21.09.2010 in the presence of Sri N.Chandrashekar Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri Ch.Baswaraj, Advocate for the Opposite party No.1 and the Opposite party No.2 remained called absent, upon hearing arguments of complainant, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per Smt Meena Ramanathan, Senior Member/ Lady Member)

1.           This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 by Complainant alleging that he is the account holder with account bearing SB No.2260 with the opposite party No.1 bank.  The opposite party No.2 sanctioned the house in the scheme of Rajiv Gruha Kalpa vide proceeding No.306/A.M.(I)RGK/2005 to complainant and he deposited an amount of Rs.1,000/- through Banker’s cheque bearing No. 400520, dated 05.04.2005 and submitted to opposite party No.2.  In pursuance of the same, opposite party No.2 allotted the house site and also recommended the opposite party No.1 for sanction of loan and on assurance of opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.2 allotted the house.  The opposite party No.1 stated to have agreed to advance the loan of Rs.67,500/-.  Accordingly, complainant opened the account bearing No.2260 with opposite party No.1.  The Complainant also deposited the amount of Rs.7,800/- in his account with opposite party No.1 towards his share.  Complainant agreed to repay the amount in 240 installments @ Rs.560/- per month.  Complainant requested the opposite party No.1 several times to release the amount for construction of house but opposite party No.1 failed to release and also failed to respond.  Since last four years, complainant is approaching the opposite party No.1 to release the amount but it postponed the same on one or other pretext.  With great difficulty, complainant deposited the money with opposite party No.1 bank.  Due to the illegal acts of opposite party No.1, complainant suffered mental pain and agony and could not commence construction work.  Complainant took the deposited amount on higher rate of interest from outside by selling gold ornaments.  The acts of Opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint with a prayer to direct the opposite party No.1 to release the loan amount of Rs.67,500/- immediately; to pay damages of Rs.50,000/-; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and also direct the opposite party No.2 to commence construction work after release of the amount by opposite party No.1; to pay costs of the proceeding and also award any other relief or reliefs.

2.                The Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that the complaint of complainant is not maintainable either on facts or on record.  It is admitted as regards to proposed housing scheme under Rajeev Gruha Kalpa through opposite party No.2 and also admitted the depositing of margin money by complainant with it.  It is stated that as per guidelines of Rajeev Gruhakalpa, the opposite party No.2 is the appropriate authority to implement it.  APHB is engaged in the activity of constructing of dwelling units.  opposite party No.2 shall identify the beneficiary and submit the applications to allocated Bank branch.  After scrutiny, the bank branch communicates the sanction of loan to the Nodal Agency.  Subsequently, the Nodal agency shall inform to beneficiary and advise him to deposit the margin money (10%) at the said bank branch.  The Nodal agency shall also allocate the house site to the beneficiary free of cost and inform the concerned bank branch for release of loan to start construction.  After receipt of letter from Nodal agency that the beneficiary is allotted house site, bank will arrange free sanction visit to the house site for releasing the loan amount in installments to the nodal agency for construction of house.  In the instant case, the beneficiary deposited margin money with the concerned bank branch.  The opposite party No.1 sanctioned the said loan and communicated the same to opposite party No.2.  As opposite party No.1 did not receive any communication from the opposite party No.2 about the allotment of house site, the bank is unable to release the loan amount.  As no allotment of house site is made by opposite party No.2, the allegations made against opposite party No.1 are incorrect and hence denied.  The non-allotment of house site was also informed to complainant and also pursued with opposite party No.2 to expedite the allocation of house site.  As such, there is no negligence or deficiency on its part.  Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3.              Complainant let his evidence in the form of affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 documents in support of his claim.  The opposite party No.1 filed attested copies of documents which are not marked. The complainant arguments heard. Perused the record.

4.               The point for consideration is 1) whether the Complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for? 2) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in release of the loan amount?  And if so, to what relief?

5.               Ex.A1 is Xerox copy of voucher showing deposit of Rs.1,000/- towards draft application form.  Ex.A2 is Xerox copy of proceedings regarding allotment of houses.  Ex.A3 is Xerox copy of Bankers’ cheque for Rs.1,000/-.  Ex.A4 is Xerox copy of receipt of Ex.A3.  Ex.A5 is Xerox copy of the bank pass book of complainant.

6.               It is not in dispute that the complainant applied for allotment of house under Rajeev Gruhakalpa scheme and also not in dispute as regards to deposit of margin money by the complainant.  The only dispute is that the Opposite party No.1 failed to release the loan amount of Rs.67,500/- in spite of sanction of house site by opposite party No.2.  In these circumstances, it is for the Complainant to prove that the opposite party No.2 has allotted the house site to him and in pursuance of the same, the opposite party No.1 failed to release the loan amount as agreed.  A keen perusal of Ex.A2 show that nowhere it is mentioned that the house site is allotted to the complainant and surprisingly, this document is filed by the complainant himself. The date and month are kept blank in Ex.A2.  The best choice was the opposite party No.2 who can speak on the authenticity of Ex.A2, since the same is issued by it.  But opposite party No.2 remained exparte and did not chose to file any counter.  On other hand, the Opposite party No.1 filed a letter dated 24-10-2005 attested by it wherein it is clearly mentioned by opposite party No.2 to enter into tripartite agreement with APSHCL, bank and beneficiary.  It is contended by the complainant that opposite party No.2 has allotted the house site and in spite of it, opposite party No.1 failed to release the loan amount.

7.                The learned counsel for opposite party No.2 stated that since no house site is allotted to complainant, the opposite party No.1 did not release the loan amount.  Further, immediately after allotment of house site, the complainant has to enter into a tripartite agreement.  There is no record to show that the complainant is allotted the house site to enable the opposite party No.1 to release the amount.  In these circumstances, no liability of deficiency in service can be fastened upon the opposite party No.1.  As rightly contended by the opposite party No.1, there is no deficiency of service or any negligence on its part in not releasing the loan amount.  The complaint of complainant is silent as regards to when the house site was allotted to him and when the loan amount was sanctioned by opposite party No.1, and what made the complainant to keep silent for all these years.  There is no record to show that the complainant pursued the matter with the appropriate authorities.  The cause of action seems to have arisen in the year 2005 as long back in the month of April and the present complaint is filed on 3-11-2009, after a delay of more than two years.  Per Section 24-A of C.P. Act, the complaint has to be instituted before the Fora within the period of two years from the date of cause of action.  The present complaint of complainant is barred by limitation per se.  Complainant ought to have filed the complaint with a petition to condone the delay which is also not done. 

8.                However, without going into the demerits of the case, the documents filed by the complainant in no way help him and establishes his claim that the opposite party No.1 failed to release the loan amount in spite of allotment of house site.  It is for the complainant to prove and establish that there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties, which is lacking in the present case.  The documents exhibited in no way are helpful to the complainant to vouchsafe his contention.  Merely because complainant deposited his share amount does not confer any right to him to claim that the Opposite party No.1 failed to release the loan amount, without establishing that he was allotted certain house site.  The complainant cannot seek any compensation for his own laches.  The Opposite party No.2 is a statutory body which works as per statute without any consideration.  Hence, in these circumstances, no relief can be granted against it.  For the above reasons, we hold that the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed for.  Hence, we answer the points accordingly and against the complainant. 

11.               In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs, however  the complainant may approach the opposite party No.2 for cancellation of his allotment and seek refund of his amount Rs.7,800/- from opposite party No.1.

                    Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum  this       07^th      day of October 2010.

               Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Senior Member/Lady member                                                 Male Member

Copy to

1. The Complainant
2. The opposite parties
3. Spare copy                    copy delivered to the Complainant/

Opp.Parties on _________

Dis.No.                 /2010, dt.