DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.18/2008 A.Kamaruddin, S/o.Amba Rawther, Thengodu House, Thengodu, Pattancherry, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad. - Complainant (By Adv.BejoyN.V & Adv.K.Dhananjayan) Vs
The Manager, State Bank of India (ADB), Opp. Town Railway Station, Shobha TSM Complex, Palakkad. - Opposite party (By Adv.John John) O R D E R
By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
Complainant had approached the opposite party with an intention to avail loan for mushroom cultivation and the opposite party had promised to render all helps and financial assistance. On that assurance the complainant had deposited his title deeds in the opposite parties bank for enabling him to sanction the loan. The opposite party on 04/12/06 had sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- for mushroom cultivation. Out of that amount, the opposite party had given Rs.50,000/- on the assurance that the balance would be disbursed after site verification of the shed. Subsequently site verification was done by the opposite party's Field Officer and having satisfied himself has suggested some
modification. The complainant modified the shed as per the opposite party's satisfaction. The amount of Rs.50,000/- which was given by the opposite party as an initial instalment had been spent for that purpose. The balance amount of Rs.1,15,000/- was not disbursed and the same was very essential for the completion of mushroom cultivation. Now the complainant is in a very miserable condition and he could neither continue the cultivation nor put an end to this. The opposite party had not performed the part of their contract as per their promise and agreement, due to which the complainant had suffered damages and mental agony to the tune of Rs.75,000/-. On 13/12/2007 the complainant had sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party. The lawyer notice had been accepted by the opposite party and reply notice was sent stating false contentions. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,15,000/- as the balance amount of the loan and Rs.75,000/- for the mental agony and Rs.5,000/- being the cost to the complainant.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer. The opposite party admitted that the Bank had disbursed Rs.50,000/- out of the loan amount on 05/12/06 itself for construction of the shed for cultivating mushroom. The Field Officer on inspection of the shed found that the shed was not constructed as per required standards. The opposite party stated that the shed constructed by the complainant was not according to the standards as required for mushroom cultivation and as specified in project report. The complainant has not cured the
defects and not complied the direction given by the field officer. The opposite party stated that shed in which the mushroom cultivation was intended was not in accordance with the standard criteria and was not at par with the project report. It is equally false and incorrect to state that the complainant deposited his title deeds in the opposite party bank only on the assurance that the opposite party would disburse the total sanctioned loan amount. The opposite party made it clear to the complainant that disbursing the loan amount is subject to the condition of the loan agreement and project report. Further averments of the complainant that an amount of Rs.50,000/- which was given by the opposite party was an initial instalment had been spent for construction of shed, that the complainant had been virtually trapped by the opposite party by not disbursing the balance amount of Rs.1,15,000/- and the opposite party has not performed the part of their contract as per their promise and agreement, due to which the complainant had suffered damage and mental agony to the tune Rs.75,000/- are all false. The Field Officer on inspection found that the shed which was constructed by the complainant was not according to the standards as required for mushroom cultivation and as specified in the project report. Further it was also found by the Field Officer that only an amount of Rs.5,000/- was spent by the complainant for the construction of shed. The Field Officer directed the complainant to do necessary improvement for the purpose of mushroom cultivation and report the same to the Bank. Thereafter the complainant had not done anything to comply with the direction given by the Field Officer. Field Officer made a second site inspection and found that the complainant had not done any improvement. Again the Field Officer brought
the said defect to the notice of the complainant and directed him to meet the minimum standards of requirements in constructing a shed for cultivating mushroom. Even after the direction given by the Field Officer to the complainant on the second time after inspection, the complainant had not done anything to cure the defect and comply his own proposal and project in the utilisation of the disbursed amount of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore the opposite party was constrained to stop further payments to the complainant. There is no breach of contract on the part of the complainant. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite party also filed affidavit. Commission report was marked as C1.
Matter was heard. Issues to be considered are; Whether the complainant is a consumer or not? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issue No.1: Opposite party has raised a contention that the complainant is not a
consumer. In Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board V Abhimanya Sahoo and Others I(2101)CPJ 59 NC the Hon'ble National Commission held that once a loan is sanctioned, then the loanee shall come within the definition of consumer. Hence complainant is a consumer.
Issues 2 & 3: It is an admitted fact that the complainant had approached the opposite party to avail loan for mushroom cultivation. The complainant had deposited his title deeds in the opposite party Bank. The opposite party had sanctioned the loan for Rs.1,65,000/- on 04/12/06. Out of that amount the opposite party had given Rs.50,000/- for the construction of a shed. Thereafter site verification was done by the opposite party's Field Officer and the Field Officer suggested some modification. The complainant stated that the modification was carried out as per the opposite party's satisfaction. According to the Commission Report, commissioner identified three sheds intended for mushroom cultivation at the site. Area of sheds was 325.75 sq. ft. Commissioner stated that the approximate age of the structure of the shed is 3 years old. Further stated that the complainant has spent Rs.75,000/- for the construction of the sheds, but at the present, the value of the sheds will be around Rs.20,000/- only. The opposite party has not filed any objection to commission report. The opposite party has stated that the shed constructed by the complainant does not satisfy with the prescribed standard required for the said purpose as per the proposal and project report submitted by the complainant. Complainant admitted that the opposite party's Field Officer visited and suggested
some improvements and modification in the shed. The complainant stated that modifications was carried out in tune with the project report. On going through the records it can be seen that the opposite party has not produced any evidence to show that the complainant has not constructed the shed according to the standards as required for mushroom cultivation as specified in the project report. The opposite party has not produced any documentary evidence. In I(2101)CPJ 59 NC Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board V Abhimanya Sahoo and Others Hon'ble National Commission held that “no evidence produced to show any violation/departure from terms. Release of balance loan amount directed”. In the present case also apart from pleadings, opposite party has not produced any documentary evidence in support of their contentions.
In view of the above discussions, we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence complaint allowed.
We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees One lakh and fifteen thousand only) which is the balance of the loan amount and Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2010. Sd/- Seena.H, President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair, Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
Appendix Witnesses examined on the side of complainant Nil Witnesses examined on the side of opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Exts.A1 – Lawyer notice dt.08/01/2007 Exts.A2 – Lawyer notice sent by complainant to opposite party dt.13/12/2007 Exts.A3 – Photo copy of Project Report Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party Nil C1 – Commissioner's Report Cost(Allowed) Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) allowed as cost to the complainant | 
