DATE OF FILING: 12.9.2013.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 05.05.2017
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Presiding Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in banking service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of her grievances before this Forum.
2. The brief fact of the complainant’s case is that she being an experienced lady agriculturist decided to plant medicinal plants in her agricultural land at her village. During the year 2008 she also got contacted with State Medicine Plant Board (for short SMPB) who also approved her plantation project with financial subsidy and support of Rs.1,90,000/- for plantation of medicine plants. The SMPB approved a project of Rs.12,00,000/- out of which the complainant took a loan of Rs.6,09,000/- from O.P.No.1 and she herself also invested Rs.6,00,000/- towards the said project. It is also stated in her complaint that the O.P.No.1 on 3.6.2008 sanctioned an amount of Rs.2,57,000/- towards the loan for purchase of medicinal plants and accordingly the O.P.No.1 issued a cheque on 21.7.2008 in the name of Prakruti Herbs and Essential Oils, Balasore. It is also mentioned in the petition that the O.P.No.1 had also paid Rs.70,000/- to the complainant for fertilizers and other expenses through the loan. Accordingly, the plant providing agency as well as the O.P.No.1 frequently visited the plantation site and due to some environmental problems the plant growths were hampered and for that though the O.P.No.1 agreed to pay the entire loan amount but did not sanction the rest amounts of the loan. The complainant repeatedly approached the O.P.No.1 to sanction the rest amount of loan but all her efforts went in vain. Due to non-release of the second phase of loan by the O.P.No.1, the entire plantation of the complainant started dying by March 2009 and by August 2009 all the plants got damaged. It is further alleged that the complainant rushed to the O.P.No.1 to ask about insurance papers to claim damages but the O.P.No.1 surprisingly refused to have any insurance cover over the plantations though it was stipulated in the conditions of loan sanction to do so by O.P.No.1 by deducting the insurance premium from the complainant. In the year 2012 on 7.3.2012 the SMPB issued a letter to turn down the release of subsidy due to non-release of second phase of loan by O.P.No.1. Due to negligence and non-cooperation of O.P.No.1, the SMPB could not release the subsidy amount of the complainant and in this way the complainant incurred a loss of about Rs.7,50,000/-. The O.P.No.1 though received the amount of Rs.95,000/- from the SMPB but did not release the second phase loan of the complainant. Even the complainant showed the letter of SMPB to O.P.No.1 but did not sanction the loan rather demanded to deposit the loan installment and turned down the requests of the complainant on the ground the O.P.No.2 & 3 has not recommended for the same. The complainant without any alternative put her grievances before Banking Ombudsman Bhubaneswar on 16.8.2012 but the Banking Ombudsman surprisingly rejected the grievances without considering the same. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps, the complainant has filed this consumer complaint with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.7,50,000/- with interest @ 9% from the year 2009 including the subsidy kept with O.P.No.1 and paid by SMPB. She has also prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony along with cost of litigation and to pass any such orders as deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
3. Notice issued against all O.Ps by this Forum. The O.Ps after receipt of notice from this Forum appeared through their learned counsel Sri P.K.Padhi on 18/12/2001 and filed their version on 15.5.2014. In the written version, it is averred that prior to 01.11.2012, Utkal Grameen Bank as stated in the cause title it was not existence and the O.P.No.2 is not properly described in the cause and title. It is also contended that the matter in dispute relates to a scheme by SMPB, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute said Board is a necessary party to this dispute. Hence, the dispute is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. This dispute does not attract the provisions of consumer law, so this case is bad in law. The contents of the complaint are all not true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of same and which are not admitted by O.Ps are hereby denied. It is also contended that the complainant is to prove that she has utilized the loan amount of Rs.3,37,000/- as received by her from Rushikulya Gramya Bank, Humma, during July 2008. The learned counsel for O.Ps further contended that on verification by bank it was found that the complainant has not utilized the loan amount for plantation but utilized for her personal purpose which is nothing but an act of cheating to the bank and for that she is liable for prosecution. The complainant failed to comply the loan guidelines issued by the said Board on 26.9.2008 so it is just and proper on part of bank not to release the loan further to safeguard the interest of the Bank. The complainant has availed a loan amount of Rs.3,37,000/- but paid only Rs.15,000/- towards her loan dues till today. The bank has requested several times to make repayment of the said loan but she paid a deaf ear to it with an evil intention to grab the loan amount. The present loan dues of the complainant as on 31.3.2014 is Rs.5,58,000/- and the O.Ps shall be obliged to this Forum if directions issued to the complainant for repayment of the loan dues. He has also contended that the O.Ps are no way liable to meet the claim of the complainant and it is misrepresentation of facts and the complaint is not coming within the purview of a consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. For the reasons stated above, the case before this Forum is not maintainable under law and liable to be dismissed with cost to meet the ends of justice.
4. Prior to hearing the consumer dispute, the parties were directed to file written argument on 15.5.2014. However, the parties failed to file the written argument as on 31.12.2015 and on the same date the Forum directed all parties to file their written argument on 18.1.2016 without fail. We are annoyed to note that despite last chances were allowed on 8.2.2016, 15.5.2016 and 22.6.2016 the parties were failed to file their written arguments and neglected to proceed with the case. On perusal of the case record, it also reveals that on 22.6.2016 the parties were directed to remain present on 16.8.2016 to file written argument without fail and for hearing but that direction was also not complied by the parties and not filed their written arguments up to 6.4.2017. On 6.4.2017, the Forum taking into account to the neglected attitudes of all parties, decided to dispose of the dispute on merits as per Section 13(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. On the date of disposal of the case on merit, the learned counsels for the complainant as well as for the O.Ps are absent on call and not filed any paper hazira to proceed with their case. As discussed above the parties failed to proceed with the case and not interested to comply the orders of the Forum issued on different dates, for which the Forum decided to dispose of the case today on merits as per the materials available on the case record. On careful perusal of the case record, it reveals that it is not in dispute or doubt that the present complainant is a loanee under O.P.No.1. The complainant for the purpose of medicinal plant plantation, applied for a loan to the O.P.No.1 in consultation with State Medicinal Plan Board and the head office of Rushikulya Gramya Bank, Berhampur also sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 6,09,000/- on 3.6.2008 with reference to the letter No. 35/19/08-09 dated 12.5.2008 of the O.P.No.1. It is also not in dispute that the O.P.No.1 disbursed a sum of Rs.2,57,000/- in favour of Prakruti Herbs and Essential Oils, Balasore for the purchase of medicinal plants by the complainant vide letter No. RGB/35/19/67 dated 21.7.2008 and bank draft bearing No.188635 dated 21.7.2008. It is also on record that the complainant has availed a loan amount of Rs.70,000/- from O.P.No.1 towards expenditure for use of fertilizer and other expenses. It is further revealed that the present complainant has also got an amount of Rs.95,000/- from SMPB on 26.9.2008 out of Rs.1,90,000/- sanctioned towards subsidy which was received by O.P.No.1 through the loan account of the complainant. On careful perusal of the complaint and documents filed by the complainant placed on the case record as annexure A1 to A12, it discloses that the complainant on several occasions has requested the O.P.No.1 to release second phase loan amount in favour of the complainant for plant protection and other expenses of medicinal plant plantation. The complainant has also contended in her complaint that due to negligence of the O.P.No.1, she has sustained financial loss of Rs.7,50,000/- due to non-release of second phase loan amount by the O.Ps. In view of the case, we would like to note that as per the contention raised by the learned counsel for the O.Ps, that prior to 1.11.2012, Utkal Grameen Bank as stated in the cause and title was not in existence and the O.P.No.2 is not properly described in the cause and title. In this regard, we would like to say that in this case, the complainant has made Utkal Grameen Bank as O.Ps but in fact the transactions and cause of action arose with Rusikulya Gramya Bank as evident from the case record. The complainant has not properly stated in the cause title and O.P.No.2 has also not been properly described. It is also an admitted fact on record that the complainant had utilized a sum of Rs.3,27,000/- for medicinal plant plantation and the said amount was received from Rusikulya Gramya Bank, Humma during the year 2008. It is also alleged by the O.Ps that the complainant has not properly utilized the loan amount and even not adhered to the guidelines of the SMPB issued on 26.9.2008 and utilized the amount for personal purpose. We further found from the contention of O.Ps that the complainant has paid only Rs.15,000/- towards loan repayment in the said loan account and as on 31.3.2014, the loan overdue is Rs.5,58,000/- on the complainant. It is also a fact that the complainant has not filed any cogent and convincing documentary proof regarding repayment of his loan dues. In the aforesaid fact and circumstance of the case, we are unable to direct the O.Ps to release the second phase loan amount in favour of the complainant, since the complainant is yet to make repayment of the loan dues of O.Ps. With regard to loss of Rs.7,50,000/- of the complainant as alleged in the complaint, we observed that the complainant’s claim appears to be exaggeration and unjust enrichment. We failed to find any contemporaneous documents on record with regard to his claim of loss and not convinced to accept the claim of the complainant. In our view, the award of consumer Forum is not a jackpot or a lottery. The contention of the complainant is quite surprising, mischievous and not tenable under law. We are, therefore, unable to accept the claim of the complainant and reject the same considering the facts and circumstance of the case. Moreover, as per the letter No. 1/13 dated 06.07.2013 of O.P.No.1, the complainant has received by letter by registered post to repay the loan liability of Rs.43,52,212/- due as on 30.6.2013 out of Rs.5,14,999/- loan outstanding for payment. In this view of the matter, there is no justification and it will prejudice to direct the O.Ps to pay an amount of Rs.7.50,000/- with interest of 9% from the year 2009 and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. In a sequel to the aforesaid discussion and deliberation by taking into account to the factual matrix of the case, we dismiss the case of the complainant against all O.Ps due to devoid of any merit.
6. Resultantly, we find no merit in the complaint filed by the complainant and dismissed the same against all O.Ps leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
7. The order is pronounced on this day of 5th May, 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
