IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR,PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This complaint filed by Sri. M.A. Ponnanna s/o. M.B. Aiyanna, resident of K. Badaga Village, Kutta Post, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District with a prayer to direct the opponents to pay damages of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.  The complainant further prayed to direct the opponents to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for loss and mental sufferings.

2. The opponent no.1 is the Chief Executive Officer, KDCC bank, Madikeri and opponent No.2 is the Manager, KDCC Bank, Kutta Branch, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District.  It is the case of complainant that he is the member and account holder of opponent no.2 since 1998.  The complainant being a coffee grower and he is possessing 7 acres of well-maintained coffee estate in Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District.  The opponents have agreed to sanction loan a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- for construction of a coffee godown in Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village.  The complainant has submitted all the relevant documents for sanction of loan and even after getting opinion from the legal advisor the opponents have refused to sanction the loan.  The complainant has spent more than Rs.1,40,000/- to collect the documents and for foundation work of godown.  The decision taken by the opponents not to sanction loan is arbitrary.  The activity of opponents is deficiency in service towards the complainant as such he has suffered mentally and financially.  Hence this complaint. 

3. The opponents after the service of notice appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version admitting that the complainant has approached them for sanction of loan for the purpose stated in the complaint.  These opponents have refused to sanction the loan as the complainant’s brother by name Poovanna has filed a suit in O.S.No.34/2017 on the file of the Civil Judge Court at Virajpet for partition and separate possession of the family properties wherein an interim order has been passed.  The complainant has suppressed the fact of pending litigation seeking partition in the family properties including land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village. The brother of complainant has issued a petition to the opponents dated 01/12/2017 objecting for sanction of loan on land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village.  The opponents have instructed the complainant to sort out the differences with co-owners of the properties at the earliest to enable loan facility to him.  In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is no deficiency on the part of opponents to reject the request of complainant to sanction loan.

4. The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked exhibits P1 to 17 documents. On behalf of opponents one Baskar.K.U s/o. late Velayuda, Manager, KDCC Bank, Kutta Branch filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked exhibits R1 to R10 documents.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant and opponents have submitted written arguments and the points  that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves that the decision of opponents for refusal to sanction loan on land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village amounts to deficiency in service?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that he is entitled to the damages and compensation as sought in the complaint?

3. What order?

6. Our findings on the above points is as under;

• Point No.1:- In the Negative
• Point No.2:- In the Negative
• Point No.3:-  As per final order for the below

R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1 to 3- In this case the opponents have not disputed the fact that the complainant has approached for sanction of loan of Rs.4,20,000/- for construction of a coffee godown in land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village.  The legal advisor of the opponents have given exhibit P2 opinion that the complainant has a clear, absolute and marketable right title and interest over the land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village and the opponents will get a valid charge if mortgage is created.  The complainant produced exhibits P4 to P16 documents to the opponents for scrutiny.  The sole contention of opponents is that the brother of complainant by name Poovanna has submitted representation/objections to grant loan in favour of the complainant since he is not the absolute owner of land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village.  The opponents have marked exhibit R1 petition dated 27/11/2017 submitted to the opponent no.2 by Poovanna brother of the complainant not to sanction loan in favour of the complainant since land Sy.No.90/5 is joint property of him and the complainant along with family properties and for that he has filed O.S.No.34/2017.  It is further stated that recently he came to know that Sy.No.90/5 is joint family property and that will be added in the partition suit O.S.No.34/2017.  Exhibit R2 is the certificate copy of order sheet in  O.S.No.34/2017 filed before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Virajpet, Kodagu District by Poovanna s/o. late Aiyanna against the complainant.  The order sheet dated 24/04/2017 shows that the learned Judge has granted exparte temporary injunction restraining the complainant Ponnanna from alienating the schedule property.  The plaintiff Poovanna in O.S.No.34/2017 has filed I.A.No.6 under order VI rule 17 of CPC to includes land Sy.No.90/5  measuring 7 acres of Poradu Village is one of the schedule property along with other properties for partition.  Exhibit R3 is public notice published in Shakthi Daily newspaper dated 01/05/2017 wherein the brother of complainant stated that no one shall purchase or create any transaction in respect of the schedule properties and O.S. No.34/2017 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court at Virajpet.

8. Exhibits R1 and R2 indicates that the brother of complainant has filed objections before the opponents not to sanction loan in favour of complainant on land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village.  Further the brother of complainant has filed an interim application to add Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village as one of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.34/2017.  The complainant in the reply arguments submitted that land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village is not the suit subject matter of O.S.No.34/2017 and the said land has granted to him by the Assistant Commissioner.  The complainant has not produced any material documents to show that land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village has been granted to him by the Assistant Commissioner.  On the contrary his own document exhibit P6 MR No.H2/11/2017-18 dated 18/07/2017 indicates that earlier land Sy.No.90/5 was standing in the name of Meederira.A. Changappa and same has been transferred in the name of complainant Ponnanna as per partition.  Therefore, there is no force in the contention of complainant that the land Sy.No.90/5 was granted to him by the Assistant Commissioner. 

9. As already observed that the brother of complainant has sent petition to the opponents on 27/11/2017 not to sanction loan on land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village.  That apart O.S. No.34/2017 is pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court at Virajpet wherein also the brother of complainant Poovanna has filed an application to include land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village as suit property for partition.  In view of claiming rights by the brother of complainant in Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village the opponents bank have taken a right decision not to sanction loan since there is dispute between the complainant and his brother Poovanna and litigation is pending in the Civil Court at Virajpet.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opponents in refusing to sanction loan on Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village for constructing a godown.  In view of the above circumstances, the complainant is not entitled either for damages or compensation as prayed in the complaint.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Sri.M.A. Ponnanna s/o. M.A. Aiyappa fails hence, it is dismissed.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own cost.
3. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opponents at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 19^th day of JANUARY, 2019)

                                                  (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                      PRESIDENT 

                                                (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                        MEMBER