On February 1, 2005, the OP Bank sanctioned Agriculture Loan limit of Rs.3,80,000/- to carryout the development scheme involving the following;

1. To purchase New Holland Ford Tractor    -  Rs. 3,56,500=00
2. To purchase Agriculture implements         -  Rs.    66,000=00
3.          TOTAL                                              -  Rs. 4,22,500=00

           10% margin to be paid by the loanee        -  Rs.    42,500=00

             N AMOUNT                                            -  Rs. 3,80,000=00

2.  Land measuring 4 acres 9 guntas in Sy.No.55/1-2 and another 6 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.56/1-2 in Navalahalli village has been mortgaged in favour of Bank as per registered mortgage deed.  The vehicle purchased was also hypothecated to the Bank.

3.  The complainant has purchased New Holland 3030 (35HP) Tractor from Shiva Form Motors, Sindhanur for Rs3,56,500=00, which has been paid by way of demand draft dated: 17-02-2005 by the Bank.  The Bank has issued another demand draft No.10540 for Rs.66,000/- to M/s Navabharath Engineering Works, Sriramangar, Gangavathi for purchase of agriculture implements as per the quotations given.

4.  The loan has to be repaid in 7 annual installments as mentioned in the loan document Ex.A.2.  The borrower has not paid any installments.  The tractor was seized and parked in Gangavathi since 23-11-2006.  The borrower has not chosen to get the tractor released by paying the overdue installments.  Notice was also sent to the party on 25-09-2012 for one time settlement.  The said opportunity was not utilized.  Subsequently the vehicle was sold in public auction on 11-11-2014 for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-.

5.  The complainant has filed a writ petition No.7597/2013 against the Bank and Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, which is pending.

6.  As per the written version filed on 07-01-2015, a sum of Rs.7,58,750/- is still due in the loan account of the complainant and the bank is contemplating to file civil suit on the basis of mortgage of the properties belonging to the complainant.

7.  The contention of the complainant in the case before consideration is that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the bank because the bank has not sold the seized tractor soon after the seizure of the vehicle and sold the same in 2014 resulting in huge loss to him, which he assessed as Rs.6,00,000/- plus Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.

8.  The complainant also prayed for adjustment of Rs.23,500/-, which has not been sanctioned to him by the Bank with interest at 18% p.a. and deducted the same out of the loan amount due.  So far as this prayer is concerned, we straightaway reject the claim because the bank has released the loan amount in respect of purchase of tractor as well as purchase of agriculture implements.

9.  There is no requirement in law that the bank should have sold the vehicle soon after the seizure.  There is no agreement to that effect in the loan document.  The complainant had opportunity to repay the loan amount released in respect of purchase of tractor and get the vehicle released to him.  That has not been done.  Therefore, there could not be any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.  Alleged loss of Rs.6,00,000/- has not been proved by adducing satisfactory evidence.  The complaint is meritless.  Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.