Date of filing : 28-07-2011
Date of order : 30 -09-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 266/2010
Dated this, the 30th day of September 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Chandrika.K, } Complainant
W/o Achutha Bhat,
Choodeamoola House,
Mulleria.Po. Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv. Jayanthlal.M, Kasaragod)
The Branch Manager, } Opposite party
Syndicate Bank, Mulleria Branch,
Mulleria, Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.
(Adv. M.Narayana Bhat, Kasaragod
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The case of the complainant Smt. Chandrika. K. is that she applied for a loan with opposite party to start a coconut shell charcoal production unit under Prime Minister Employment Generation Program (PMEGP). The opposite party Bank has agreed to sanction loan to the tune of `8,00,000/-. On the basis of the promise made by opposite party, the complainant produced all documents necessary for sanctioning the loan and undergone training for running the unit. But opposite party, refused to sanction the loan on a flimsy grounds.
2. According to opposite party, when they visited the proposed site it was found out that the husband of the complainant Mr. Achutha Bhat had earlier run a coconut shell charcoal unit and there was vide spread protest from the people of the locality against running of the charcoal shell unit. The people of the locality had complained to various authorities in respect of the pollution emanating from the said factory. It was their grievance that the people of the locality are facing serious health problems from the smoke and pollution emanating from the factory. Ultimately the Pancyahath authority interfered and the said factory stopped with the aid of the police. The husband of the complainant has not opened his unit so far after it was closed in the year 2008. During the local inspection of opposite party, inhabitants of that locality complained about the serious health problems they suffered formerly from the smoke and pollution emanated from the factory of Achutha Bhat.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of her case. She was cross-examined by the counsel of opposite party. Opposite party examined as DW1 and Exts B1 and B2 marked. Both sides heard and all documents perused carefully.
4. The points to be considered in this complaint are:
1. Whether the complainant has suffered any loss, hardships and mental agony on
Account of the non-disbursement of the loan?
2. Is their any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
3. If so, what is the order as to relief and cost?
5. Points 1 & 2 are considered together for sake of brevity
The claim of the complainant is `1,00,000/- for the losses, hardships and mental agony suffered on account of non-granting of loan to him. In order to support his claim. Exts A1 to A13 documents produced. Ext.A2 is the letter sent by Syndicate Bank Mulleria branch to produce certain documents at the earliest which are highly necessary for sanctioning the loan. Relying upon Ext.A2, the complainant was made to run from pillar to post for obtaining various documents for the purpose of obtaining loan. She had undergone training also.
6. On a bare perusal of the documents produced before the Forum that was submitted before the opposite parties for granting loan itself makes it clear that complainant had taken much time efforts and pain to prepare the documents. She had undergone training from 4-5-2009 to 15-05-2009.
7. Against the pleadings and evidence both by oral and documentary adduced by the complainant, the opposite parties produced Exts B1 and B2 it is the copy of the representation given to the Hon’ble Health Minister by the residents of Chodamoola of Karadka Grama Panchayath and representation given to the Manager Syndicate Bank, Mulleria Branch by the residents of Chodamoola of Karnataka Grama Panchayath.
8. In defense the contentions raised by the opposite parties are very feeble and it is raised only for the sake of defense. One of the contentions is that complainant is not a consumer as she has not availed any service for consideration from the opposite party and the complaint is not maintainable. The said contention is not sustainable. Since complainant being an applicant for loan would be a potential consumer.
9. The contention that the smoke and pollution emanating from the factory causes serious health problems in the locality and the residents of that locality given a representation to the opposite party against the granting of the loan to the complainant for starting coconut shell charcoal unit. In her cross-examination she deposed that they have 10 acres of land and this factory was intended to erect in the Middle of the property. Earlier her husband started a charcoal factory without proper licence hence it is closed due to the protest of local residents. But in the present case she had obtained valid licence from Pollution Control Board. Ext.A3, and Ext.A10 are true and genuine documents these documents contradict the contentions of opposite party.
11. Ext.A10 is a consent letter given by the immediate neighbours of the complainant residing at Karkala Grama Panchayath. In their consent they have given consent to Smt. Chandrika W/o. Achutha Bhat to start a coconut charcoal unit at her own premises. In the consent letter it is further stated that the said Charcoal unit causes is no pollution problem to them.
12. There are 2 citations produced by the opposite party in support of his case.
a) III (1998) Consumer Protection Judgments 52.
b) I (1992) Consumer Protection Judgments 244 (NC).
But the circumstances in those cases and present cases are different.
13 We are of the view that the contentions raised by the opposite party is very feeble and it is raised only for the sake of defense. Nothing prevent the opposite party from sanctioning the loan on the strength of Ext.A10 document. Now a days government is encouraging women entrepreneurs by granting attractive subsidy. Here the complainant is having enough knowledge about the project and she has every potential to run the proposed project. As far as the bank is concerned they need only to look in to the return of the amount advance. It is already come in evidence that complainant is owning 10 acres of land. The value of which is 10 times greater than the loan purposed.
In the result, opposite party is directed either to sanction the loan to the complainant or give compensation of `50,000/- (Compensation for mental agony, sufferings and losses) with a cost of `5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which opposite party shall further liable to pay interest @ 9% for `50,000/- from the date of complaint till payment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Project report.
A2. Letter sent by the Bank Manager, Syndicate Bank Mulleria Branch to Applicant.
A3.Consent to establish the unit granted by the Kerala State Pollution control Board.
A4. Building permit issued by the Secretary, Karadka Grama Panchayath.
A5. Green Channel Certificate
A6. Certificate issued by the Director of Vellikoth Institute of Rural Enterprenurship
Development.
A7 Certificate issued by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission.
A8. Detailed estimate for proposed construction of coconut shell charcoal refinery unit at
Choodeamoola.
A9, Acknoweldgement given by the Manager, Dist. Industries Centre.
A10. Consent letter
A11 Letter sent from the project officer of Dist. Khadi & Village Industries office.
A12. Letter issued by Chandrika to the Head Bank Manager, Syndicate Bank, Mulleria.
A13. Letter issued by the Project Officer to the Manager, Syndicate Bank Mulleria.
B1. 4-4-2008 complaint sent by the Chodamoola Peoples to Hon’ble Health Minister.
B2. 11-05-2009 complaint sent by the Chodamoola People to Manager, Syndicate Bank,
Mulleria
PW1. Chandrika.
DW1. K. Vijayan.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
