Karnataka

Bellary

CC/122/2014

MAHANTESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER,PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMINA BANK,BANAVIKAL BRANCH,KUDLIGI TALUK & ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SRI THIPPESWAMY.K

24 Mar 2015

ORDER

FILED ON:	13-08-2014
ORDER ON:	24-03-2015

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BELLARY

 

C.C.No.122 of 2014

 

Present:

 

(1)   Shri. R.Bandachar,

B.Com, LL.B.  (Spl) ……    President

(in-charge)

 

(2) Smt Mary Havila,

B.A.                       ……        Member

 

 

th DAY OF MARCH 2015.

 

COMPLAINANT   By-Shri Thippeswamy K, Advocate, Bellary.         //VS//	Mahantesh, S/o Moogappa, Age: 55 years, Teacher, R/o Harakabhavi village, Kudligi taluk, Bellary Dist.
RESPONDENTS       By-Shri  H.Raghavendrachar, Advocate, Bellary,	1)The Branch Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Banavikal Branch, Kudligi taluk, Bellary District.   2)The Field Officer, Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Banavikal Branch, Kudligi Taluk, Bellary District.

 

// O R D E R //

 

Per Shri R.Bandachar.

 

The complainant filed the complaint against the respondents U/Sec-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.  The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant approached the respondents’ bank along with relevant documents i.e. ROR, EC, Boundary Certificate etc. for the purpose of availing agricultural crop loan. The respondents verified the documents and returned them stating that the loan facility on the said property cannot be granted to him and they instructed him to approach their Main Branch at Bellary.  Accordingly, on 16-07-2014 the complainant approached the Main Branch, Bellary and showed the said documents.  After verification, the Manager at Main Branch informed the complainant that he is entitled to get the loan on the said property by hypothecating his lands before the respondents’ bank.  The complainant informed the said fact to the respondents through phone and requested them to sanction loan.  But the respondents did not sanction the loan.  Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice dated; 19-07-2014 to the respondents calling upon them to consider his documents and requested to sanction the loan. In spite of service of notice the respondents neither replied nor complied with the said request, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

3.  The respondent no.1 filed the written version which is adopted by the respondent no.2 in brief is as follows;

The allegations made in the complaint, except those which are specifically admitted, are denied. The complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of C.P. Act as the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the respondents’ bank. The allegations made in para-1 to 10 of the complaint are denied. The complainant was asked to repay of earlier loan sanctioned to him and fresh loan shall be considered only on repayment of earlier loan.  The complainant has suppressed the material facts and has sought for fresh loan as a matter of right which is impermissible as per the regulations of the respondents’ bank.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents’ bank.   Therefore, the complaint be dismissed.

4.  The complainant to prove his case, as his evidence, filed his affidavit, which is marked as P.W.1 and got marked 07 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. The respondents as their evidence, filed one affidavit, which is marked as Rw.1 and got marked 02 documents as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.

5.  The written arguments are filed by the complainant as well as by the respondents.

6.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

 

1.	Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the respondents toward him, as alleged in the complaint?
2.	Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?
3.	What order?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.   The findings on the above points are as under.

Point No.1:	In the negative.
Point No.2:	In the negative.
Point No.3:	As per final order.

 

// R  E A S O N S //

Point No.1: -

8.  It is the case of the complainant that  even though he had submitted relevant documents i.e. ROR, EC, Boundary Certificate etc. for the purpose of availing agricultural crop loan, the respondents’ bank did not sanction loan to him for the reasons best known to them which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

9.  However, the respondents have contended that the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of C.P. Act and the complainant was asked to repay of earlier loan sanctioned to him and fresh loan shall be considered only on repayment of earlier loan, but the complainant has suppressed the material facts and has sought for fresh loan as a matter of right which is impermissible as per the regulations of the respondents’ bank and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents’ bank.

10.  However, it is the discretionary powers vested to the respondents’ bank to sanction the loan to its customers and the complainant cannot insist upon the respondents’ bank to sanction the loan.  To prove that the complainant was due for earlier loan amount sanctioned to him, the respondents produced the copy of demand notice issued to the complainant which is marked as Ex.R.1 informing the complainant that fresh loan shall be considered only on repayment of old loan amount.  But the complainant has not produced any documents to show that he had repaid the entire earlier loan amount sanctioned to him. Further Ex.R.1 is not disputed by the complainant.  Ex.R.2 which is the copy of loan outstanding document shows that the complainant was due towards earlier loan to the respondents’ bank.  Therefore, deficiency in service is not found on the part of the respondents’ bank.   Accordingly, we answer this point in the negative.

Point No.2 :-

11.  As it is found that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, he is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.   Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.

Point No.3 : -

12. In view of the discussions made under Point No.1 and 2, we pass the following;

 

//ORDER//

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Inform the parties accordingly.

 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open court  this 24th day of March 2015)

 

 

 

	(R.BANDACHAR) PRESIDENT.
	(MARY HAVILA) MEMBER

 

 

 

 

trk