Karnataka

Kolar

CC/57/2015

Sri.K.N.Ramaswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank,(IOB) - Opp.Party(s)

Suman.K

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 07/12/2015

Date of Order: 29/09/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

PRESENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB…..    MEMBER (In-charge President)

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 57 OF 2015

Sri. K.N. Ramaswamy,

S/o. Narayanaswamy,

Aged About 50 Years,

R/at: Kandavara Village,

Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk,

Chikkaballapura District.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth.Suman.K. & Somashekhar.R, Advocates)

                                                                                        ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank, (IOB)

B.B. Road, Chikkaballapur

Taluk & District.

 

2) The Assistant General Manager,

Regional Office, Indian Overseas

Bank, (IOB), No.29, Haddows Road,

Vasanthnagar, Bangalore.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. A.S.Nagaraj, Advocate)               …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER

01.   The complainant having submitted the complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) has sought, reliefs against these Ops, for issuance of directions to release the balance loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as well, to sanction another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loan on same lands to improve sheep rearing shed and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and any other reliefs as this Forum deems fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

        It is contention of the complainant that, he had approached OP No.1 for seeking finance to develop sheep rearing sheds measuring 80 x 20 in his land.  After processing the loan application by the confirmation of OP-2, OP No.1 agreed and sanctioned loan of Rs.7,50,000/- with 12.75% per annum (estimated plan valued of Rs.12,00,000/-) against the security of mortgage of lands bearing Sy. No. 100/1, 75/2, 4/12, 4/4 in total 1.5 acres executed agreement dated: 10.03.2014 in favour of OP No.1.

 

(a)    Further it is contended that, pursuant to the agreement Ops have released a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to him, and remaining balance loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- had not released without any justification.

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, the estimated amount for sheep shed was of Rs.12,00,000/-, Ops have sanctioned loan of Rs.7,00,000/- out of which OP No.1 had released only Rs.5,00,000/-, hence he could not able to complete the sheep shed.  Even several approaches made by him to OP-1 for release of remaining loan sanctioned amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which was of no use.

 

(c)    It is contended that, he had availed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from local money lenders with 4% monthly interest to complete the sheep shed, hence he could not able to pay dues to OP No.1, claiming this to be deficiency in service of Ops, the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand seeking the above set out reliefs.

 

(d)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted the below mentioned documents:-

(i) The loan agreement dated: 10.03.2014.

(ii) The Bank Pass Book of complainant.

(iii) The notice dated: 08.01.2015.

(iv) The 2^nd Notice dated: 19.01.2015 with courier receipt.

(v) The 3^rd Notice dated: 12.01.2015 with courier receipt.

(vi) The notice dated: 20.01.2015 with postal receipt and acknowledgement.

(vii) The letter issued by the Opponent No.1 to Sheep Training Assistant Director, Bangalore.

(viii) The letter issued by the OP No.1 to Sheep Training director, Bangalore.

(ix) Sheep insurance copies 3 in numbers.

(x) Pahanies 4 in numbers and 1 Mutation.

 

03.   In response to the notices served the Ops have put in their appearance through their said learned counsel and have submitted written version resisting the claim of the complainant in toto.

 

(a)    It is specifically contended that, the complainant has approached OP No.1 for loan to construct sheep shed for rearing sheep.  After verification of documents submitted by complainant pertaining to Sy. No.100/1 measuring 0-39 guntas, Sy. No.4/11, extent 0-07 guntas, Sy. No.4/12, extent 0-11 guntas and Sy. No.75/2 measuring 0-08 guntas, among these three properties are dry lands and only one property is irrigated land and hence OP No.2 being head office was sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to build sheep shed and for rearing of 60 sheep and 3 Ram and even after receipt of loan amount also the complainant was not purchased 60 sheep and not even build the rearing shed properly.

 

(b)    It is also contended that, the complainant was purchased only 11 sheep and Bank authorities have put identification marks for the same.  Among these 07 sheep valued at Rs.6,500/- each, 04 sheep valued at Rs.6,000/- each, in total it comes a sum of Rs.69,000/-.

 

(c)    It is contended that, the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was sanctioned on 19.03.2014 at the rate of 11.75% interest half yearly the complainant was not paid yet while receiving loan amount complainant was executed simple mortgage and signed the DPN – Revised (Linked to Base rate) on 19.03.2014.  And Mallesh Kumar the surety / guarantor also did signed to this mortgage. 

 

(d)    It is specifically contends that, Ops were estimated the total value of properties as Rs.7,00,000/- among which they were entitled to sanction only 75% amount, remaining 25% investing liability is on complainant itself.  Thus Ops were sanctioned loan of Rs.5,00,000/- by executing simple mortgage, marginal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- OP No.1 was not having powers to sanction.  So contending, dismissal of the complaint with costs has been sought.

 

04.   The very complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence and got himself examined as PW-1 and by even facing the cross-examination.  On behalf of the complainant Exhibits P-1 to P-22 came to be marked.

 

05.   On 24.08.2016 the complainant has submitted Memo with below mentioned three documents:-

(i) Salary Slips for the month of June-2016

(ii) Salary Slips for the month of July-2016

(iii) Certificate of Service.

 

06.   On 14.09.2016 the complainant has submitted the below mentioned citation:-

“1998(3) CPR (SC) Kar”

 

07.   On 19.09.2016 on behalf of Ops Sri. Ajay Peter Topno, Deputy Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Chikkaballapura Branch, has submitted his affidavit evidence.

 

08.   On 29.02.2016 written arguments on behalf of the complainant have been submitted.  On 19.09.2016 the learned counsel appearing for the Ops has submitted written arguments and Memo with below mentioned two citations and letter dated: 06.08.2016:-

(i) 1996(1) CPJ 8

(ii)1992 CPJ 33

 

09.   On 24.08.2016 the learned counsel appearing for Ops has submitted below mentioned 05 documents:-

(i) Notarized copy of the loan application dt: 10.03.2014.

(ii) Notarized copy of the credit sanction advice dt: 19.03.2014.

(iii) Notarized copy of the office note cum appraisal note dated: 19.03.2014.

(iv) Notarized copy of the Guarantor’s statement dated: 19.03.2014.

(v) Letter by the complainant to the bank dated: 22.09.2014.

 

10.   Heard oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

 

11.   At this juncture itself it is observed that, the document as citation submitted by the learned counsel appearing for complainant on 14.09.2016, is only the citations are indicated without producing copies of the said judgment.  As such, this District Forum is prevented from applying the principles enunciated in the said citation.

 

12.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

(A) Whether the Ops are guilty of deficiency of service?

(B) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

(C) What order?

 

13.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A):-  In the Negative

POINT (B):-  In the Negative.

POINT (C):-  As per the final order

for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

14.   To avoid repetition in reasoning and as these points do warrant common course of discussion the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

(a)    The main contention of the complainant is that, out of Rs.12,00,000/- estimated valued plan of the properties bearing Sy. No.100/1 measuring 0-39 guntas, Sy. No.4/11, extent 0-07 guntas, Sy. No.4/12, extent 0-11 guntas and Sy. No.75/2 measuring 0-08 guntas, the Ops had sanctioned a loan of Rs.7,50,000/- after executing simple mortgage deed dated: 10.03.2014, out of which OP No.1 had released Rs.5,00,000/- to him on different dates and not released remaining balance amount of loan sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.

 

(b)    Now, we are to concentrate a letter dated: 22.09.2014, which was written by the very complainant to OP No.1, the recitals in this letter is summarized as:- the complainant had already received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in the said loan, by this he had purchased 30 sheep and he was requested to release the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- of the said loan.

 

(c)    So, by this it is crystal clear that, the sanctioned loan amount is Rs.5,00,000/- only.  The same is confirmed even on going through the loan application dated: 19.03.2014.

 

(d)    On perusal of the letter dated: 06.08.2016 it gives explanation with regard to mention of Rs.7,00,000/- in mortgage deed dated: 10.03.2014. It is the mortgage is available for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, the complainant had sanctioned a loan for 63 sheep rearing project cost of Rs.6,69,000/- and thus he had sanctioned a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- keeping 25% margin.  And that, even after in receipt of complete loan amount, the complainant had remained as defaulter of installment, so he is not eligible for extension of loan.

 

(e)    The principle enunciated in the citation revealed by the Ops “(1996) 1 CPJ 8 reads thus:-

“It is for the Bank and financial institutions to take their own decisions with regard to the extent of assistance to be given to any industry with term and working capital loans.  If there is any evidence of proved abuse of exercise of their authority by the Bank officials in taking decision with regard thereto within the frame work of the credit policy laid down by the Government of India and the reserve Bank of India, redress has to be sought from the officers of the Bank in their higher echelons.  But it is not open for this Commission to substitute its judgment for the decision to be taken by the Bank.  The Bank and financial institutions have to see whether particular party is eligible for further assistance.  If a borrower is a defaulter, it is open to the Bank and financial institutions not to sanction any further assistance to him and refusal to finance a unit does not constitute deficiency in service.” 

 

(f)     The principle enunciated in (1992) 1 CPJ 33 reads thus:-

“Sanctioning of financial or other aid or continuing of the same is a discretionary power on the part of the financier or the industrial development corporation and refusal to sanction the financier aid in the bonafide exercise of the discretion will not constitute a deficiency in service.”

 

(g)    So, we consider the principles enunciated in the above mentioned citations are very much applicable to this case on hand and we are of the opinion that, the complainant was sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and he was in the receipt of full loan amount.  And as he admitted he had not yet paid installments.  So complainant has become defaulter of loan payment.

 

(h)    Hence we are of the definite opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  And also we shall not be able to interfere in extension of further loan amount, we lack jurisdiction as the same cannot form the subject matter of adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

POINT (C):

15.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For the foregoing reasons the present complaint is Dismissed with a direction for both parties to bear their own costs, with a further direction to the complainant to seek remedies before appropriate Civil Court.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 29^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016)

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                MEMBER(In-charge of President)        

ANNEXURES

LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:-

 

1) PW.1  ::            Sri. K.N. Ramaswamy.

 

3) LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:-

 

Exhibit P.1 :-  Copy of registered loan agreement dated: 10.03.2014

Exhibit P.2:-   Copy of Bank pass book of the complainant.

Exhibit P.3:-   Office copy of the application in the form of letter dt: 05.01.2015

Exhibit P.4:-   Copy of another letter dt: 19.01.2015.

Exhibit P.5:-   Courier receipt dt: 19.01.2015

Exhibit P.6:-   Copy of letter dt: 12.01.2015

Exhibit P.7:-   Courier receipt dt: 12.01.2015

Exhibit P.8:-   Office copy of the letter dt: 20.01.2015

Exhibits P.9 & 10:-    Postal receipt & Acknowledgement

Exhibit P.11:- Copy of Mutation Entry

Exhibit P.12:- Letter dt: 08.09.2014 addressed to Deputy Director.

Exhibit P.13:- Even dated letter addressed to Managing Director

Exhibit P.14:- Copy of insurance policy

Exhibits P.15 to 18:-  Four RTCs pertaining to Sy. Nos.100/1, 75/2, 4/12, 4/4

Exhibit P.19:- Market value confirmation certificate dt: 08.03.2016 issued by Sub-

Registrar, Chikkaballapur, in respect of immovable property situated at Suddahalli Village in Chikkaballapur Tq & District.

Exhibit P.20:- Similar certificate in respect of immovable property sitatuted at

Tirnahalli Village, Chikkaballapur Taluk & Disttict.

Exhibit P.21:- RTC Extract in respect of Sy. No.4/11 of the landed property

situated at Tirnahalli Village, Chikkaballapur Taluk & District for

the year 2015-16.

 

Exhibit P.22:- RTC extract in respect of Sy. No.7/1 of the landed property situated

at Suddahalli Village, Chikkaballapur Taluk & District for the year

2015-16.

 

 

4)      LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OPs:-

-  Nil –

 

 

5)      LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF OPS:-

 

- NIL –

 

6)      LIST OF INTERIM APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY BOTH PARTIES:-

 

IA.1 :   Under Order 9 Rule 7 R/w. Sec.151 of CPC

IA.2 :   Under Sec. 151 of CPC

IA.3 :   Under Sec. 151 of CPC

IA.4:    Under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of CPC

IA.5:    Under Order 6 Rule 17 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC

IA.6:    Under Sec. 151 of CPC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                 MEMBER(In-charge of President)