Judgment & Order dt. 06.07.2017
This is the complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, filed by the complainant against the Branch Manager, Industrial Development Bank of India, Balurghat Branch alleging deficiency in service for not disbursing his cash credit loan and also the subsidy amount which has been granted to him by the government for purchasing a Power Tiller. The summation and summarization of the facts necessary for and germane to disposal of the instant case may be reproduced as follows.
The complainant is a cultivator and he maintains a Saving Bank Account, vide A/c No.1032104000070081 in the Bank of OP-1 on and from 4.2.2016. He was also sanctioned a Kishan Credit Card (KCC) under the scheme of government and a loan of Rs.2 lakh was also sanctioned to him on 30.1.2017 under KCC account for cultivation of seasonal crops on condition that he would repay the loan after harvesting of the said crop. The complainant also applied for purchasing a Power Tiller on subsidized price of the government and a subsidy amount of Rs.60,000/- was also sanctioned to him by the government. But, the OP-Bank did not disburse the KCC loan and the subsidy amount to the complainant, although the complainant continued to knock at the door of the Bank at several times. According to the complainant, the Bank Branch Manager insisted him on purchasing the Power Tiller of his choice from his known person, to which he disgreed and, therefore, the loan amount as well as the subsidy amount were not disbursed to him in order to harass him. Subsequently, it has been learnt by the complainant that loan amount has been kept in Fixed Deposit Account in the name of him by the bank. The complainant alleges that the Branch Manager has kept the loan amount in FD account without his consent having obtained some papers fraudulently signed from him, so that the said amounts are not disbursed to him. This is, as alleged by the complainant, sheer deficiency in service on the part of the OP and therefore the complainant prays for a suitable order directing the OP to disburse the loan amount and also the subsidy amount to him and to make payment of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.
OP-1 i.e. Branch Manager of I.D.B.I. has entered appearance and has also submitted written version, wherein it is contended inter alia that Rs. 2 lakh was sanctioned as KCC loan to the complainant having observed all due formalities of the bank. He, i.e. the complainant, was asked to furnish security at the tune of Rs.2 lakh before the disbursement of loan amount was made. But he could not. Rather, he asked the Bank to keep the loan amount of Rs.2 lakh pigeonholed in FD account and that he accordingly signed the papers necessary for creating FD account. The entire loan amount of Rs.2 lakh has accordingly been kept deposited in FD in the name of the complainant. As regards the subsidy amount, the complainant was asked to produce quotation for purchasing Power Tiller from the dealers thereof, but the complainant did not produce any such quotation before the Bank and therefore the subsidy amount was not disbursed to the complainant. The allegation against the Bank for deliberately causing harassment to the complainant is denied by the Bank. According to the OP-Bank, there was no deficiency in service as alleged and that the complaint deserves to be rejected.
Upon the averments of both the parties the following issues are formulated for effective adjudication of the matter in dispute.
ISSUES:
- Has the OP-Bank committed deficiency in service in refusing disbursement of both the loan amount and the subsidy amount to the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get remedy including compensation as prayed for?
Evidence of the parties:
The complainant has filed an affidavit-in-chief which is kept in the record. He has also filed some documents as per firisti also kept in the record. On the other hand, the OP-Bank has also filed some documents along with a copy of R.B.I. guidelines in respect of cash credit loan and these are also kept in the record.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue Nos.1 & 2:
Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP-Bank has contended that the security was not furnished by the complainant for disbursal of KCC loan and therefore the loan amount was not disbursed to the complainant. According to him, whenever the loan amount exceeds Rs.1 lakh the Bank is entitled to demand collateral security from the complainant / loanee and in the instant case the Bank has acted in accordance with banking rules of RBI guidelines in demanding collateral security from the complainant. It is further argued by the Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP-Bank that it will be wrong to say that the loan amount has not been disbursed to the complainant. The loan amount has been disbursed to the complainant and it has been kept aside in the FD account in the name of the complainant with his consent.
As regards disbursement of the subsidy amount, it is contended by him that the complainant himself is at fault; he did not deposit any quotation from any dealers for purchasing of Power Tiller and that the OP-Bank could not therefore disburse the subsidy amount which is required to be paid only to the dealer when possession of the article will be delivered to the complainant. There is nothing sort of deficiency in service on the part of OP-Bank as alleged by the complainant, as goes his submission.
Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has vehemently contended that the Branch Manager wanted the complainant to purchase the Power Tiller from his (Manager’s) known person. But, as the complainant failed to ingratiate the Branch Manager of the Bank, he did not make disbursement of the loan amount to the complainant and kept the loan amount in FD account in the name of the complainant in order to save his own skin. The complainant has no consent to the loan amount being kept in the FD account by the Bank. The purpose of KCC loan is to help a farmer to grow seasonal crops; its purpose is not to keep it in deposit in FD account for the purpose of earning interest. By keeping the loan amount pigeonholed in the FD account, the Branch Manager has acted contrary to the purpose of KCC scheme and also the guidelines of RBI, resulting in sheer deficiency in service. The complainant being a farmer has not been able to utilize the loan in the seasonal crops and that he has thus suffered a huge loss for deficiency in service of the Bank. As such the complainant is entitled to remedy as prayed for including compensation against the OP-Bank.
Perused the complaint and the written version filed by the parties along with the documents filed by them and the affidavit-in-chief filed by the complainant. Considered all these. Also considered the submission made on behalf of the parties.
It is undisputed fact that the KCC loan of Rs.2 lakh has been sanctioned by the OP-Bank to the complainant and also undisputed is the fact that the government subsidy of Rs.60,000/- has been sanctioned to the complainant for purchasing a Power Tiller. But the trouble erupted only when both the amounts were not disbursed by the OP-Bank to the complainant. Fact remains that the amount of KCC loan i.e. Rs. 2 lakh has been kept deposited in FD account by the OP-Bank in the name of the complainant. The purpose of KCC loan is to enable the poor farmer to cultivate the seasonal crops in their lands and it is the part of Govt. policy. But a novel thing is found herein; not only a novel thing, but an innovative one also. It is submitted by the Bank that the complainant have to furnish collateral security for disbursement of the loan amount and therefore the loan amount was kept in the FD account in the name of the complainant as security. The entire loan amount has been made security by the OP-Bank. Security is taken by the Bank from the loanee for a purpose; the purpose is to recover the loan amount when the same loan amount is not repaid by the loanee. If the loan amount is not paid to the loanee, what remains of the value of the security? Does not the security lose all its significance in that case? Having gone through all these facts and circumstances, we asked the Ld. Lawyer appearing for the Bank to submit any rules before us to show that the Branch Manager has acted within his jurisdiction by keeping the loan amount in FD account of the complainant. He has not been able to place any such rules before us and in absence of such rules, we make no scruple whatsoever to say that the Branch Manager has acted in gross perfunctory manner having kept the loan amount of the complainant pigeonholed in the FD account in his name. Such act on the part of Branch Manager appears to be an attempt to prevent the skeletons from tumbling down out of cup board. He has acted contrary to the purpose of KCC loan and also to the trodden track of Banking rules by depositing it in FD account. The concerned Manager of the OP-Bank has acted clumsily. His act of getting agricultural loan deposited in FD account reeks nothing but his sheer arbitrariness and disrespect for banking rules and also the purpose of agricultural loan which was granted under the Govt. scheme. Ld. Lawyer has predicated for the OP-Bank that FD account has been created for the purpose of security. We know very well that the purpose of taking security by the Bank from a loanee is to secure repayment of loan in case of default by the loanee. But, if very purpose is not accomplished, if loan is not disbursed, what is the utility of taking security from the complainant / loanee. Why was the security taken by way of FD from the complainant and what for? Regard being had to these, we do never feel a least hesitation to say that the concerned Br. Manager of the OP-Bank flouted the prescription and proscription of banking rules and also the purpose of scheme of KCC of the Govt. He undoubtedly committed deficiency in service, for which he will have to pay compensation to the complainant for the loss suffered by him. Due to his malfeasant act, the complainant has suffered a lot; he could not grow seasonal crops for want of money and thus loss suffered by the complainant beggars description.
As regards the disbursement of subsidy amount, it has been argued on behalf of OP-Bank that the complainant did not produce any quotation before the Branch Manager of the OP-Bank and therefore the concerned Branch Manager of the OP-Bank could not disburse the subsidy amount to the complainant. In this regard, there is, as goes the submission of Ld. Lawyer for the OP-Bank, no latches or any deficiency in service on the part of the concerned Branch Manager of the OP-Bank. The complainant has submitted in this context that the Branch Manager insisted him on purchasing the Power Tiller from his known person and as he failed to oblige the said Branch Manager, the subsidy amount was not disbursed to him. It is true that the disbursement of subsidy amount can be made to the complainant only when he produces duly issued quotation of the dealer and the Bank is required to make payment of subsidy amount to the quotationer after delivery of the Power Tiller to the complainant. This is so directed in the Govt. order, vide Memo No.673 dt. 21.3.2017 office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Admn) Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat (copy produced). In view of aforesaid Govt. letter, Branch Manager of the OP-Bank is required to issue a letter to the complainant requesting him to produce quotation for Power Tiller of his choice from any of the dealers from whom he wants to purchase the said Power Tiller. But, no such letter is seen to have been issued by the OP-Bank to the complainant. It seems that everything has been done by the Branch Manager of the OP-Bank in hush-hush manner. This non-chalant and sordid activity on the part of the Branch Manager of the OP-Bank may will be characterized as gross deficiency in service for which none but the complainant has suffered a havoc loss. The subsidy amount was granted by the Govt. to the complainant on 21.3.2017 and no letter seeking quotation by the complainant has been issued by the OP-Bank till the filing of the instant case by the complainant.
Upon what have been discussed above and in view of the facts and circumstances on record as pointed out above, we are of opinion that the OP-Bank is guilty of deficiency in service and that the complainant has sustained loss to a great extent for such deficient service of the Branch Manager of the OP-Bank. The Bank Branch Manager has thoughtlessly tantalized the complainant with the result that he sustained mental agony, which propelled and impelled him to file the instant case. In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the complaint-case be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OP-Bank with costs which is quantified at Rs.2,000/- only.
The OP-Bank is directed to make disbursement of KCC loan of Rs. 2 lakh in favour of the complainant within 15 days of passing of the judgment after having taken title deed or documents of the land for cultivation of which loan is disbursed, as collateral security for the loan. The complainant is directed to produce title deed/document of his land as referred to above before the OP-Bank for the purpose of security for the loan amount within 10 days of this order. He, i.e. the complainant is also directed to collect quotation in 3 copies from the dealer of his choice for purchase of Power Tiller and to deposit the same before the OP-Bank also within 10 days of this order and on such deposit / production having been made by the complainant, OP-Bank will take necessary steps so that the Power Tiller is delivered to the complainant and the dealer also gets the payment of subsidy amount.
OP-Bank is further directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only as compensation to the complainant for loss pecuniary and mental, sustained by the complainant due to malfeasant act of concerned Branch Manager of it along with payment of Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within a month of this order, failing which the compensation amount will bear interest @ 12 % p.a. until full realization of the said amount. When the compensation amount will be paid by the Bank to the complainant, the complainant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund” (A/c No. 0093000100310261) payable at P.N.B. Balurghat Branch and file the receipt thereof before this Forum positively.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost at once to the parties concerned.
