Complainant/s:             Mohammadgouse S/o    

                                     Abdulrahamansab Doddamani,  

                                              Age:66 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                              R/o Hudco Colony, Sidling Nagar,

                                              Near Water Tank, Gadag.

                                            (Rep. by Sri.S. K. Patil, Advocate)   

V/s

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA .C.H. PRESIDENT:

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP by invoking Sec 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 to pay Rs.25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a, from 27.06.2019 till realization, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards cost and such other relief.

             The averments of the complaint in brief are:

         2.  The above complaint filed by the complainant, stating that, he is an agriculturist and customer of OP Bank having S.B A/c bearing No. 17024016985.  It is further submitted that, he availed crop loan of Rs.1,00,000/- with A/c No.89015944340 on 17.07.2012.  As per the order of Government of Karnataka, Government asked particulars of crop loan from the concerned Bank and as per the Government Order, complainant is entitled for Rs.25,000/- benefit as incentive.  But, the OP wrongly sent the name of complainant as Doddamani Mohammadgouse S/o Rahamansab even though the Bank account of complainant is as Doddamani Mohammadgouse S/o Abdulrahamansab.  Because of the mistake done by the OP Bank, complainant has not yet received the amount of Rs.25,000/- which is sanctioned by the Government of Karnataka.  It is further submitted that, complainant approached the Bank many times and also the head of office of the OP at Dharwad.  The OP Bank submitted the crop loan waiver 94-column data entry report, in that report the Bank submitted the details of complainant as Mr. Mahammedgouse S/o Rehamansab D on 26.06.2019.  Again on 04.10.2019, OP issued a letter to Tahasildar, Gadag.  In that, OP Bank authority stated as Mohammadgouse S/o Abdulrahamansab Doddamani stating that, the complainant is eligible for incentive of Rs.25,000/-, but again OP Bank wrongly stated that, in the Bank record it is available as Mr. Mohammedgouse S/o Rahamansab D and also it is stated that, complainant is eligible for incentive of Rs.25,000/-.  It is further submitted that, the Tahasildar, Gadag wrote a letter on 10.10.2019 to Manager, lead Bank, Gadag stating that, there is no any wrong in the name of father of complainant in Adhar Card, Ration Card and Record of Rights of complainant’s agricultural land and also stated that in TLC Login, it is approved.    But the complainant has not received the incentive amount of Rs.25,000/- because of the wrong submission/report made by the OP, which is a deficiency of service by sending wrong name of the father of complainant even though the records of the OP Bank showing as Mohammadgouse S/o Abdulrahamansab Doddamani.   Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OP on 07.08.2020 calling upon the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a from 27.06.2019 and Rs.10,000/- as compensation, but the OP the OP sent a false reply through Advocate on 18.08.2020.   The cause of action for this complaint arose on 18.08.2019 when the complainant received reply notice from the OP.   Hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to OP.

         3.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Commission, the OP appeared through Advocate and filed written version. 

          The brief facts of the Written Version of OP

          4.       The OP contended that, none of the contents of complaint are admitted, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the complaint is not maintainable both in law and also on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 

          It is further submitted that, the OP has not done any mistake in sending the documents to the Government.  The complaint filed by the complainant is barred by time.  This OP does not come under the definition of services as per Sec.2(1)(c) to (iv) of the C.P. Act and the alleged pleadings are insufficient to constitute a complaint and as such, the dispute cannot be called as “Consumer Dispute” as per the C.P Act u/Sec.2(1)(c).  There is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP and hence, this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.

          It is true that, the complainant is having A/c No.17024016985 and 89015944340, the same is informed to the complainant and the same is produced before the TLC which is pending one.  This OP is only a collecting agent between the farmers and Government Loan Waiver Scheme.  The scope and responsibility of this OP is very limited one and is not a sanctioning authority.  The duty of this OP is to receive the Circular/applications/proposal and fill up the required information as per the guidelines of the Crop Loan Waiver Scheme and forward the same to Government, but the information in the present complaint are not matched for minimum 60% at the Government level, like “KYC” Norms so all verification is failed for sanctioning the incentive amount.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP and prayed to dismiss the complaint with heavy costs.

         5.  The complainant filed his Chief affidavit along with 06 documents.  On the other hand, the Manager of OP filed chief affidavit with 06 documents.

    COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

          OP FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

         6.   On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainant and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service

on the part of the OP as averred in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
3. What Order?

    7.       Our findings to the above points are:-

              Point No. 1:  Affirmative

              Point No. 2:  Partially Affirmative

              Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

           8.  POINT NO.1 AND 2:  Both the points are inter-linked and identical. Hence we proceed both the points together.

           9.      The Complainant has filed this Complaint against the OP claiming that, the OP made deficiency in service while sending the name of the complainant to the concerned authority i.e., the Tahasildar of concerned jurisdiction. 

          10.     As per the order of Government of Karnataka, they required the members/names of crop loan holders from the concerned Bank to pay Rs.25,000/- as an incentive to the complainant.  The OP submits that, they have sent the name of complainant properly and they also sent follow up document to say that, Sri Mohammadgouse Abdulrahamansab Doddamani (complainant) who is their customer and he availed crop loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and he repaid the loan amount till 2017 and he is eligible for incentive of Rs.25,000/-.  But the name of the complainant in their record is as Sri. Mohammadgouse Ramansab. D, which is not matching more than 90% to Aadhar Card, Ration Card and in RTC.  Further submits that, the person is same as in all records and eligible for incentive of Rs.25,000/-. 

          11.     On going through the records on file, complainant furnished some of the documents. In Ex.C-1, i.e., the crop loan waiver document, the name of the complainant had been sent to the Government as Mahammedgouse Rehamansab. D but, in the pass book, it is mentioned as Doddamani Mahmadgouse Abdulrehmansab.  The OP is not disputed the same because, the pass book had been issued by themselves.  If the OP sends the name as per the pass book, the complainant is entitled for the incentive.  Hence, the Commission found that, OP made deficiency in service while sending the name of the complainant to the concerned authority.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative & Point No.2 is in Partly Affirmative.          

           12.  POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaint filed by the complainant is partially allowed. In the result, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

          1.  The above Complaint is partially allowed.

          2.   The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation charges to the complainant within one month.  Failing which, the OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

3.  Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 7^th day of April-2021)

          (Shri B.S.Keri)                               (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

               MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT