Presented by Sri G. S. Pradhan, President. <br /> The present complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a member as well as a Kisan Credit Card holder vide K.C.C. No.235501682 under the Opposite Party No.3(three). As per the norms prescribed by Opposite Party No.2(two), the Opposite Party No.3(three) sanctions the loan and the amount is paid by the Opposite Party No.1(one) on presentation of cheque by the K.C.C holder. The Opposite Party No.3(three) sanctioned the loan amount for Rs. 27,000/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand)only for the block period i.e. 2008-2009 in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant has repaid the loan amount which was availed for Rabi Crop-2008 on Dt. 25/06/2009. After repayment of the loan he is entitled for loan for Kharif crop-2009. As such the Complainant presented a K.C.C. cheque bearing No. 45967 for Rs. 27,000/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand)only on Dt. 30/06/2009 before the Opposite Party No.1(one). After observing all formalities for making payment of the cheque amount, no payment was made and ultimately cancelled the cheque without assigning any reason by the the Opposite Party No.1(one). The Complainant reported the matter to Opposite Party No.2(two) but no any action was taken for payment of loans to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed this case and claims compensation of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only for pecuniary loss, Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only for mental agony, Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expenses and also to pay the loan amount of Rs. 27,000/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand)only with interest to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In their joint version the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) denied to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant. The Complainant is a member of Opposite Party No.3(three) and also a Kisan Credit Card holder vide K.C.C. No. 235501682 is not disputed by the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties contend that, the Opposite Party No.3(three) sends proposal of t loan of a member of the society and it is the discretion of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) to grant any loan to a society member. On Dt. 30/06/2009 the Complainant presented the cheque before the Opposite Party No.1(one) but at the time of payment he was not present in the Bank. Since Dt. 30/06/2009 was the closing day of the month and the Complainant was absent, for the closing of the account of the Bank, the Opposite Party No.1(one) cancelled the cheque.<br /> <br /> Further the Opposite Parties contend that the Complainant is not a consumer of Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) and granting of loan is discretion of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two). For his own fault the cheque was cancelled and the Complainant can not claim the loan as a matter of right.<br /> <br /> The Complainant has claimed for damages and it is a dispute of Civil nature which can be raised under the O.C.S. Act hence this Forum has got no jurisdiction and prays for dismissal of the case with cost.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a member of Opposite Party No.3(three) since Dt. 28/06/2002 and also a Kishan Credit Card holder vide K.C.C No. 235501682 and the Complainant is availing crop loan from Opposite Party No.3(three) and regularly repaying the same is not disputed by the Opposite Party No.3(three). Further it is not disputed that the Opposite Party No.3(three) has sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 27,000/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand)only to the Complainant for the period 2008 and 2009 for both Kharif and Rabi Crop.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three) contend that, the society Opposite Party No.3(three) sanctions the loan and the borrower presents the cheque before Opposite Party No.1(one) and it is the discretion of Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) to grant any loan as per prevailing system of finance. The Opposite Party No.3(three) only attest the signature of the borrower on the cheques but the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) grant/pay the loan. The Opposite Party No.3(three) has committed no deficiency in service towards the Complainant and prays for dismissal of the case against this Opposite Party No.3(three).<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint petition, Op's version as well as the copy of documents filed by the parties and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> It is not disputed that the Complainant is a member and Kisan Credit Card holder bearing K.C.C. No. 235501682 under the Opposite Party No.3(three) and was availing crop loan through Kisan Credit Card and was paying the loan with interest to the Opposite Parties in time regularly. Further it is also not disputed that, the K.C.C. cheque bearing No. 45967 for Rs. 27,000/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand)only Dt. 30/06/2009 presented by the Complainant was cancelled by the Opposite Party No.1(one). In para three of its version the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) alleges that sanction of loan depends on the Opposite Party No.1(one) and it is the discretion of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) to grant any loan to a society member. The Opposite Party No.3(three) sends proposal of the loan of a member of the society. Where as the Opposite Party No.3(three) in its version contends that the society (Opposite Party No.3) sanctions the loan and borrowers presents the cheque before Opposite Party No.1(one) and it is the discretion of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) to grant any loan. So the statements of Opposite Parties contradict each other. However after sanctioning of a loan of Kisan Credit Card holder and while he is presenting the cheque before the Opposite Party No.1(one) he should not have cancelled the cheque. It may be the discretion of Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) to grant any loan to a society member but not arbitrarily.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party alleges that on Dt. 30/06/2009 the Complainant present the cheque before Opposite Party No.1(one) but at the time of payment, the Complainant was not present in the Bank. As it was the closing day of the month and the Complainant was absent to receive the amount so for closing of the account of the Bank, the Opposite Party No.1(one) cancelled the cheque. To establish their case the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) have not adduced any evidence either in shape of affidavit or in any other forms. In this circumstances we cannot believe the version of Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two).<br /> <br /> After cancellation of the cheque by the Opposite Party No.1(one), the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties through letter Dt. 06/07/2009 to know the reason of cancellation of the cheque but, the Opposite Parties remain silent in the matter. The xerox copy of cheque No. 45697 shows that, the Opposite Party No.1(one) made endorsement for payment of the cheque amount but no payment was made to the Complainant and ultimately the Opposite Party No.1(one) cancelled the cheque without assigning any reason there of is amounts to deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In the result, Complaint allowed and ordered as follows:-<br /> The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant the cheque amount of Rs. 27,000/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand)only and a compensation of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only towards mental agony and cost of the case with in thirty days hence, failing which 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum shall be charged on the awarded amount till payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.<br />