Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 30th day of July, 2004
C.D.No.61/2003
Smt.E.Sridevi,
W/o E.Satyanarayana,
H.No.87/459,
Sri Lakshmi Nagar,
Kurnool. ... Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan.
-Vs-
- The District Collector-Cum-Chairman,
K.D.B.C.S.C.S Limited,
Kurnool. ... Opposite party No.1 represented by his
Counsel Sri.T.Nagabhushanam Naidu
- General Manager,
The District Co-operative Central Bank Limited,
Kurnool. ... Opposite party No.2 represented by his
Counsel Sri.K.Ramakrishna Rao
O R D E R
(As per Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Member)
CC.No.61/2003
1. This Consumer Dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 11 and 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to release the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the complainant and also other reliefs which the complainant remains entitle in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant submitted an application to the opposite parties for the sanction of loan amount of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of the Saree Business for the complainant’s lively hood, under B.C. Action Plan 2002-2003. For the said purpose, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.12/- to the opposite party No.2 towards membership fee and joined as ‘B’ Class member in the opposite party No.2 Bank, the opposite party No.1 after verifying the said loan application of the complainant released an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards margin money i.e., 20% of the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party no.2 under the said B.C. Action Plan. Then the opposite party No.2 sanctioned an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards the said loan amount under the sanctioned Orders on 25-02-2003. As per this Order the complainant went to the opposite party No.2 Bank to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the beneficiary contribution but the opposite party No.2 bank refused to take the said amount and as per the direction of the opposite party No.2 Bank, the complainant submitted all the documents Viz., Security Letter, Promissory Note, Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement, Surety under taking Salary Certificate of the Surety, Income Certificate, Caste Certificate and no-dues certificates from all the banks to the opposite party No.2 Bank. Even though the opposite party No.2 Bank after due verification of the above said all documents till then they said bank not released above said sanctioned loan amount to the complainant, hence the complainant is seeking the direction for the said release of the above said sanctioned amount along with the compensation, costs of the case.
3. The opposite parties in pursuance of the notice served on them made appearance through their counsel and filed written versions (Objection statements) and the sworn affidavits denying the truth and the bonafidies of the complaint averments and maintainability of the complaint on facts and law.
4. The opposite party No.1 admits that the complainant along with four other applicants was submitted their applications for taking loans. The opposite party No.2 Bank has sanctioned loans on 02-04-2002 for the complainant and other 4 members for which 20% margin money loan i.e., 10,000/- for each has been released by the opposite party no.1 and each beneficiary under the scheme has to deposit 5% of the loan amount i.e., Rs.5,000/- in the opposite party No.2 Bank. The total unit cost is of Rs.50,000/-. These loans have been sanctioned under B.C. Welfare Action Plan of 2002-2003 for the beneficiaries under the Woman Welfare backward Classes Scheme, as they have to furnish the security as stipulated under the said scheme. Whereas the opposite party No.2 Bank and P.I.C./Chairman has revised the terms and conditions vide resolution No.16 dated 29-04-2003 where as the complainant beneficiary has to offer security of immovable property for the sanction of loan. The same was informed by the opposite party No.1 through its letter No.Lr.NOC/142/2003 B.C. dated 08-08-2003, but the complainant even though received the said letter did not furnish the immovable property as security for the sanction of the said loan to the complainant , hence as there is not deficiency and the complaint is not maintainable as the subject matter of dispute does not come under the purview of the C.P. Act this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and liable to be dismissed and the opposite party No.1 sworn affidavit also reiterates the above facts.
5. The opposite party No.2 Bank admits that the opposite party No.1 has released 20% margin money and the same is received on 04-01-2003 under the scheme, earlier loans were disbursed to the women beneficiaries under the woman development cell under the security of Government Employees and as the recovery of the loans were not satisfactory, the management of the Bank (opposite party No.2) revised the loan policy under the resolution dated 29-04-2003 and under this revised loan policy the applicant should own immovable property and should become “B” Class member in the opposite party No.2 Bank and the loan amount sanctioned is repayable with 16% interest per annum in 36 installments and the applicant has to create simple mortgage for the said loan amount as security and the shop building could be the own building of the applicant or it can be rented and if it is rented a lease agreement for 4 years must be produced. But amount borrowed must be utilized for the purpose for which it is borrowed and default is committed in payment of installments of loan will carry penal interest and the repayment must be by means of cheque and the borrower has to handover in advance 36 post dated cheques. All the above revised loan policy as per the said resolution dated 29-04-2003 the complainant was informed and requested the complainant to comply with the conditions stated therein and the same revised loan policy was served on the complainant instead of complying with, the complainant on or about 16-05-2003 moved the grievance cell in the Collector rate for the reliefs and soon thereafter on or about 12-06-2003 came up in this complaint. In pursuance of the non compliance of the terms stipulated in the revised loan policy dated 29-04-2003 the application of the complainant is pending and the loan is not sanctioned, hence the allegation in the complaint that the loan was sanctioned is not correct and as the said processing of loan application is done free of charge, hence the complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum and in the result there is not deficiency in rendering service, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the opposite party No.2 Bank sworn affidavit also reiterates the above facts.
6. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant’s side has relied upon the documentary evidence in Ex.A1 and three citations Viz., (1) II-2004 C.P.J. Page 370 Rajasthan. (2) 2003-4 C.L.D. Page 904 Orissa. (3) I-2004 C.P.J. (S.C.) Page 1 besides its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence, and the opposite party No.2 Bank side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 and on citation i.e., 2003 (2) ALT Page 43 (N.C.) Paras 11 and 12 and submitted its written arguments besides its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this complaint?
8. The Ex.A1 is the Saving Bank Account Pass book No.1140 of the complainant which is of opposite party No.2s Bank, wherein the complainant deposited Rs.5,000/- on 22-03-2003 towards the beneficiary contribution for the above said loan. An attested Xerox copy of the Letter No.Manager/WPC/S.J.R.Y/Consult Letter/2002-2003 dated 02-04-2002 addressed by the opposite party No.2s bank to the executive director, B.C., Corporation, Kurnool under copy to the complainant/concerned individual wherein the opposite party No.2s Bank requested to release margin money of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as the opposite party No.2s Bank is ready to sanction loan and further informed that the said margin money has to be released to the opposite party No.2s Bank before the disbursement of the Banks Loan Portion and further opposite party No.2 Bank also requested the complainant to submit a quotation, security of the landed property or Government Employee security with pay drawing certificate and no due certificates from all the Banks in Kurnool. In pursuance of this letter (The original letter of this same reference dated pertaining to the concerned individual/complainant of the CD No.58/2003 filed which was marked as Ex.A2 in the said CD for its appreciation) the District Collector/Chairman, K.D.B.C.S.C.S. Limited, Kurnool in his proceedings RC.No. E/2002 B.C. dated 28-12-2002 has accorded sanction for the release of 20% margin money of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with four others under the B.C. Action Plan 2002-2003, which is marked as Ex.B.1 (original filed in CD No.58/2003) and the copy of which is marked to the individual (complainant) for information. Thus the complainant came to know the sanction of the said margin money. Accordingly the complainant has deposited his contribution of Rs.5,000/- towards the beneficiary contribution as per Ex.A1 to enable the opposite party No.2s Bank to release the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.35,000/- along with the said margin money and the beneficiary contribution. The Ex.B.2 is an application for the sanction of loans to the Women through the Women Development Cell of the District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited (opposite party No.2) in which the particulars of the complainant to be furnished i.e., name, father/husband’s name, education qualifications, purpose of loan, address of the applicant, applicant caste, applicants annual income, details of the margin money/subsidy if any, amount of loan applied and the designation of the security and full address. The Ex.B.3 is the loan agreement-cum-hypothecation agreement and guarantee deed obtained on Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamp Papers by the opposite party No.2 Bank from the complainant (borrower) for the surety for the said loan amount of RS.50,000/-. The Ex.B.4 is the promissory note for Rs.50,000/- obtained from the complainant (borrower) and the security with two witnesses. The Ex.B.5 is the surety undertaking wherein the surety (Government Employee) under takes that if the complainant (borrower) who has availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite party No.2s bank for the purpose of sarees business and if the borrower (complainant)fails to repay that whole or any part of the loan the same along with penal interest and legal and other expenses will be paid by him (surety) immediately on receipt of the demand of the notice from the opposite party No.2s bank for recovery of the same from his salary (surety) and if surety said to repay the same on receipt of the notice from the opposite party No.2s Bank. The Ex.B6 is the salary certificate of the surety issued by the concerned pay drawing officer with pay particulars, and the particulars of the deduction. The Ex.B7 is the no due certificate obtained from all the 30 Banks of Kurnool. The Ex.B8 is the application for the “B” Class membership of the complainant and who in turn admitted as “B” Class member (No.37) on 25-02-2003, an endorsement to this effect on the said application with Manager Signature and dated 25-02-2003 and the Ex.B9 is the resolution No.16 of the Board meeting of PIC dated 29-04-2003. Wherein it is resolved that the resolution No.29 dated 24-04-2002 has been modified and the borrowers who require loans under the Women Development Scheme has to possess own immovable property instead of a surety of the Government Employee and the borrower has to create simple mortgage in opposite party No.2 Bank for the above said loans. It clearly shows that it is not applicable to the loan sanctioned under the sanction under the sanction letter dated 02-04-2002 and Ex.B1.
9. The opposite party No.2s Bank Counsel submitted written arguments wherein the opposite party No.2 Bank admits that the opposite party No.2 Bank at the request of the complainant had produced the original documents that are in its custody which were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B9. The opposite party No.2 Bank itself admits that it is a common practice that after sanction of the loan and release of the loan amount the documents come to be dated i.e., Ex.B2 to Ex.B5 and Ex.B8. The opposite party No.2 Bank argues that the complainant has not admitted as “B” Class member which is prerequisite for the sanction of the loan and also in para 4 of the written arguments the opposite party No.2 has stated that the situation arises only after loan is sanctioned and the complainant is admitted to the membership of the Bank, but whereas the Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 clearly shows that the complainant has been admitted as “B” Class member on 25-02-2003 with the membership No.37 by the opposite party No.2 Bank. The opposite party No.2 Bank is harping on its resolution dated 29-04-2003 (Ex.B9). Wherein the complainant (borrower) who has been sanctioned loan has to create simply mortgage by offering immovable property, but an attested Xerox copy of the letter dated 02-04-2002 reveals that the opposite party No.2 Bank has intimated sanction of the loan to the complainant to the Executive Director, B.C. Corporation, Kurnool and requested the said officer to release subsidy and the margin money and the same to be transferred to the Bank before disbursement of the loan. It is also informed to the complainant that the complainant has to produce quotation, security of landed property or the Government Employees Surety with pay Drawing Officer Certificate and no due certificate of all banks in the Kurnool. Accordingly the District Collector as Chairman, K.D.B.C.S.C.S. Limited, Kurnool, sanction is accorded for the release of 20% margin money of loan (Rs.10,000/-) to the complainant in the reference RC No.E 2002 B.C., dated 28-12-2002 (Ex.B1) wherein the compliant has to deposit Rs.5,000/- towards beneficiary contribution in the opposite party No.2 bank and accordingly the complaint accordingly the complainant deposited the said amount in the opposite party No.2 Bank (Ex.A1) on 15-03-2003 itself. As the above evidence clearly reveals that the said resolution (Ex.B9) has no relevance to the present loan as it was not clearly envisaged that the complainant along with other s will come under this regulations for the loans sanctioned for the year 2002-2003 under the said scheme for those already sanctioned loans and released the margin money under the old regulation i.e., on the security of the salary certificate of a Government Employee. The opposite party No.2 Bank counsel in para No.6 of its written arguments raised an objection that merely producing the salary certificate is no answer to the stipulated conditions for the Employer has to give an undertaking which has to be accompanied along with the said salary certificate that the Employer will deduct from the guarantor’s salary, the loan installments and transmit it to the Bank This system is only applicable in the cases of loans obtained by the Employees themselves, but not in this case of the complainant. Hence as per the opposite party No.2 Bank specifications the complainant has to produce surety undertaking along with the salary certificate of the Government Employee i.e., surety which were marked as Ex.B5 and Ex.B6 and the opposite party No.2 Banks plea that the section 126 Co-Operative Societies Act which reads as “No suit shall be instituted against a Society or any of its Officer in respect of any Act touching constitution, Management or the business of the Society until the expiration of 60 days next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar” and admitted that the opposite party No.2 Bank is a Co-Operative Society. Text of the complaint relates to the business of the Society. And the o opposite party No.2 bank in this aspect relied on the judgment of 2003 (2) ALT Page 43 (NC) (CPA), but it has no relevance to the present case of the complainant as it relates to Canara Bank (Respondent) which is not a Co-operative Society and need not be looked into for its appreciation. Finally the opposite party No.2 Bank counsel put forth an argument that one Syamala Devi Reddy who was an Official of the opposite party No.2 Bank, In charge of the Woman Development Cell was suspended and come to light of the enquiry report dated 19-08-2003 that the said Official colluded with the another Official and fabricated documents under this scheme. As there was no such whisper either in the written version on in the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 Bank and such plea, which was the internal matter of the opposite party No.2 Bank and there was no cogent material as to the details of the said enquiry and it could not be appreciated or considered in the circumstances of the proceedings of the case and in the light of the above written arguments the opposite party No.2 pleads that the complaint is liable for dismissal with costs.
10. The opposite party No.1 in para 9 of its sworn affidavit clearly admits that the opposite party No.1 released the margin money loan 20% i.e., Rs.10,000/- for each beneficiary (Ex.B1) the opposite party No.2 Bank is alone responsible to release the remaining balance loan amount to the beneficiaries after fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the rules of the scheme. As per the terms and conditions in vogue at the time of the release of the margin money the complainant/beneficiary had fulfilled the same as per the Ex.B2 to Ex.B9 and Ex.A1 and the said margin money was released only after the sanction of the loan to the beneficiaries by the opposite party No.2 Bank in its letter dated 02-04-2002.
11. The complainant in support of her case relied on the judgment of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, II (2004) CPJ Page 370 wherein it was observed that the loan applied to promote handmade paper Industry in Khadhi Gramodhyog Commission and others and the complainants completed all required formalities and loan duly sanctioned, but not disbursed the relationship of the consumer and the provider of service existed for the consideration. Hence there is deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to disperse the sanctioned loan, the complainant in support of her case relied on the judgment of the Orissa (2003) 4 CLD Page 904 wherein it was observed that the appellant bank sanctioned loan to the complainant and released only a part of the loan amount towards the furniture and fixtures, but they said bank has not released remaining amount based on its mis-utilisation report of the part said loan amount, wherein the letter which appellant bank stated to have sent to the complainant about such mis-utlisation was not forth coming, there was nothing wrong with the District Forum orders in allowing the complainant and upholds the same by the said Commission. In the present case also as per the averment in the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 at para No.7 it was submitted that this complainant and four applicants are informed vide the opposite party No.1 Office Letter No.C/142/2003/B.C., Dated 08-08-2003. Wherein the said letter which the opposite party No.1 stated to have sent to the complainant and four others and they have been requested to approach the opposite party No.2 Bank and offer the security of immovable property for the sanction of the loan was not forth coming and filed as evidence for its appreciation either by the opposite party No.1 or the opposite party No.2 Bank and the complainant lastly in support of her case relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC) Para 1 in this case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-Operative, Agricultural Credit Society Appellant -Vs- M.Lalitha (Dead) through L.Rs and others respondents wherein it was observed that the dispute between the Members and the Management of the Co-Operative Society and the Sections 90 and 156 of Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983 wherein rights and the liabilities created between Members and the Management of the Co-Operative Society under the said 1983 Act, cannot exclude the jurisdiction under the 1986 C.P. Act. In the light of the decision of the above case the plea taken by the opposite party No.2 Bank in its sworn affidavit at para Nos. 6 and 7 and its written version at Para No.7 is not tenable and accordingly this Forum had jurisdiction to deal with the said disputes of this case.
12. As no cause of action is made out against the opposite party No.1 the complaint against the opposite party No.1 is dismissed.
13. Hence, in the result, in sum up of the above discussion and there being any valid and satisfactory cogent material placed by the opposite party No.2 Bank while warranted is to stop the disbursement of the loan to the complainant, the opposite party No.2 Bank is here by directed to released the sanctioned lone amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant which includes the margin money of Rs.10,000/- already sanctioned by opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.2 Bank and Rs.5,000/- which the complainant has to deposit with the opposite party No.2 Bank towards the beneficiary contribution Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.500/- as costs within a month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to the dictation, corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court, this the 30th day of July, 2004.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Pass Book of the complainant Account No.1140.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Xerox copy of proceedings of the District Collector under RC.No.E/2002 B.C., date d 28-12-2002.
Ex.B2 Application of the complainant for sanction of loan.
Ex.B3 Loan Agreement-Cum-Hypothecation Guarantee dated 03-02-2003 of complainant for Rs.50,000/-.
Ex.B4 Promissory Note dated Nil of the complainant.
Ex.B5 Surety under taking given by V.Ramanamma.
Ex.B6 Salary Certificate of V.Ramanamma.
Ex.B7 No due Certificate issued by various Banks to the complainant.
Ex.B8 Application for “B” Class Membership of the complainant to the General Manager, District Co-Operative Central Bank, Kurnool.
Ex.B9 Attested copy of Resolution No.16 dated 29-04-2003.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
