DATE OF FILING: 25/04/2015

DATE OF DISPOSAL:25/10/2016

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT: HAVERI

C.C.No.17/2015

 Dated on this the 25^th  day of October 2016

PRESENT:

Smt.SunandaDurgesh.,B.A.LL.B.,                                             …..PRESIDENT 

Sri.RajuN.Metri., B.Com,.LL.B.,                                                    … MEMBER

Smt. B.S.Maheshwari, B.Sc.LL.M.,                                  …… LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:-

Sri. Prabhu S/o. Hanumanthappa Itagi,

Age  major, resident of Chikkahrarahalli Village,

Tal. Ranebennur, Dist. Haveri.  

(By Sri. J.R.Mandre, Advocate)

V/S

OPPONENTS:-

The Manager, Vijaya Bank,

Station Road,Ranebennur.

(Sri. S.B.Kannavalli, Advocate,)

= = = = = = = = = =

-:WRITTEN BY MEMBER RAJU N METRI :-

-:JUDGMENT:-

            The complaint was filed by the  complainant U/s 12 of the C.P.Act 1986 and  praying to pass the order directing the opponent  to return the agricultural implements fitted cultivators and sowing implements worth of Rs.2.50 lakhs and to settle the dues as per Government Instructions facilitation, facilitated to formers even by  waiver of loan and loan interest.

 The brief facts of the case as here under:-

             That the complainant  availing the loan from opponent during 2005      a sum of Rs.4,95,000/-and Rs.1,00,000/-for  purchase of tractor and crop loan vide tractor No.KA27/T/8708 and KA27/T8709 and he invested  huge amount of Rs.3,50,000/- by fixing hood and required implements which was fitted with cultivator and sowing implements to make field worthy. Further due to   failure of mansoon and drought the complainant paid part of the loan amount and even crop loan amount was credited to tractor loan account.

                       3. The  said tractor was met with an accident and MVC.No.261 to 265/2010 was filed in civil court Ranubennur and said case being settled in E.P. 463 to 467 on 28/11/2013. During the pendency of the MVC  cases the opponent seized the tractor along with agricultural implements and sold the vehicle for throw away price and caused more loss to the complainant and they have not return the seized cultivators and  allied products to the complainant.

                       4. The complainant approached the opponent to settle the loan subject to one time settlement and reduced the interest, but the opponent did not agree for the same and demanded the loan due along with interest to prevailing  in lok Adalath and seized the cultivators and allied products.  The complainant got issued notice to ascertain the actual sale value and available government subsidy vide notice dated: 14/11/2014 which was served on 29/11/2014. The opponent was not replied, but issued the notice towards the recovery of loan amount dated 12/12/2014 without furnishing the details of credited to account.  Therefore he prayed to direct the opponent to return the agricultural implements fitted cultivators and sowing implements worth of Rs.2.50 lakhs and to settle the due as per the instruction facilitated to farmers even by waiver of loan and loan interest.

                       5. This forum admits the case and issue notice to opponent in response to the notice. The opponent appeared through their counsel and filed their written version.

                       6. The opponent denied all the facts of the complaint and the same is not maintainable under the law and facts and deserve to be dismissed. Further submits that the complainant has barrow a sum of Rs.4,95,000/-on 2/9/2005 by mortgaging agricultural land bearing R.S.No.49/1B, 27/1measuring 6 acres 16 guntas and also  hypothecated his tractor and trailer in  favor of Bank. Further the complainant has committed default  in payment of due a sum of Rs.14,23,319/- as on 3/5/2015  with future interest and other charges to be incurred by the bank for non-payment of dues. The opponent has already filed a case before that Debt recovery tribunal, Bangalore against the complainant for recovery of the amount due from him. The complainant  committed default in re payment of loan as per the terms of loan agreement and the account became NPA as per terms and conditions stipulated in hypothecated agreement and arrive granted therein, they have seized the hypothecated  and sold under public auction and credited to loan account of the complainant and they have seized the hypothecated machinery only and not seized the agricultural implements fitted and  sowing implements worth of Rs 2.50 lakhs as alleged by the complainant. Therefore the opponent bank is functioning as per bank rules as per government and RBI guidelines and prayed to dismiss and there is no negligence of service on the part of the opponent. Hence to dismiss the complaint.  

                       7. In support of the case the complainant has examined by way of affidavit in twice as PW-1, PW1(a) and two witnesses by way of affidavit of PW-2, PW-3 and produced the documents which are marked Ex.C-1 to C-5.

                       8. The opponent has examined by way of affidavit in twice as RW-1, RW-1(a) and one witness by way of affidavit as RW-2 and produced the documents which are marked as Ex.R-1 to R- 7.

                       9. Heard the arguments of both parties.

                       10.  The said pleadings oral and documentary evidence adduced by the both parties following points are arose for our consideration. 

1. Whether the complainant proves that there is a

deficiency in service on part of opponent which are

                  alleged in the  memorandum of  complaint?

      (2)        What relief the complainant entitled for?

      (3)        What order?

11.My answer to above points is as here  under:-

             (1) Point No.1:- Negative  

              (2) Point No. 2. Negative

            (3) Point No.3:- As per final order.

                            ::REASONS::

12.Point No.1&2:-  In this case  the complainant barrowed the loan  amount of Rs.4,95,000/- from opponent bank on  2/9/2005  by mortgaging the agricultural land for purchasing of  tractor and trailer and also the said vehicle was hypothecated to opponent bank and  the loan account No.250020. The said loan was barrowed by the complainant along with their brothers Sri.Gundappa, Dilleppa, Bheerappa, S/o. Hanumanthappa Itagi, the present complaint is the RC owner of the said seized vehicle.  But all these are not made the party in this case, reasons best known to them. But  we decide to proceed the matter  on merits to avoid multiple proceedings. The present complainant and their brothers who barrowed  the loan from opponent have not repaid the said loan due amount, for that the opponent have decided to seize the hypothecated vehicle of the complainant and  to that effect they have started to process the recovery proceedings against the complainant and seized the hypothecated tractor and trailor and sold it through private agency and the complainant filed this complaint alleging that they have not follow the proper procedure to seize the vehicle and also seized the some agricultural implements attached to the tractor and trailor

and filed this complaint against the opponent and the opponents filed their written version and produced the following documents. They are:-

1. Moter vehicle inspection report dated 25/11/2010.

2. Letter to complainant as regardthe seizing of vehicle

dt;4/3/2011.

3. Letter to complainant as regard sale of seized

vehicle dt:3/8/2011

4.Letter to complainant as regard to pay the balance due

loan dt;8/11/2011.

5.Seizing report and inventor dated 27/2/2011 .

6. Cash credit bill

7. Auction notice on kannada news paper dated 13/4/2011.

13. All these documents are produced by the opponent on 8/12/2015. After perusing these documents the complainant has filed another additional evidence of the complainantraisingthe point that the opponent who has given the public notice as regards the auction of the seized vehicle on Kannada News Paper dated 13/4/2011 in that only tractor was mentionedbut trailer was not at all shown and other seized equipments are not at all revealed and also thesaid seized vehicle was sold by private Agency of Rs.90,000/- this is also cause loss to the complainant. The letter submitted by opponent dated 4/3/2011indicating the due of Rs.8,51,108/-, where the cost of seized vehicle along with the trailor and agricultural implements among to more than Rs.7,00,000/-.Therefore the opponent has caused heavy loss to the complainant, to that effect the opponent has also filed an additional evidence on affidavit by denying all these facts and stated that they havegiven the contract to seized the vehicle ie M/s. Mathrushri Seizing Agency to seize the vehicle and sold it and accordingly the said vehicle wasinspected and reported that it was not running good condition dated 25/11/2010 which is marked as Ex.R-1 and the said vehicle waskept parked in front of thehouse of the complainant and the said tractor and trialor was seized and details of the seized vehicle report and inventory wassupplied to the Bheerappa Itagiwho is brother of complainant andhe is also one of the barrower of the loan, which is marked as Ex.R-5.Further after seizing and selling of the said tractor and trailer Rs.90,000/- as per terms and conditions. The opponent intimated to complainant on 30/8/2011 that there is no bidder for the auction notice publication dated 13/4/2011, they were disposing the seized asset through private agency which is marked as Ex.R-2. This document clearly shows that the said seized vehicle was not sold on the auction notice given by the opponent dated 13/4/2011 and sold it by private agency.

14. Further the complainant adduced evidence of two witnesses by name Ningappa, S/o. Bassappa Konannavar and Hanumanthppa S/o. Somappa Olekar. They stated that the seizing agencyhave seized the tractor and trialor along with fitted Agricultural implements and sowing implements such as cultivator rotometer pluggingequipments etc in their presence and the said equipments are belonging to them. But they have not produced any documents to prove thatthe said implements arebelonging to them, just mere filing an affidavit is not sufficient.

15.Further the opponent also filed a witness evidence by way of affidavit of the seizing agency person M/s Mathushree Seizing Agency and he stated that the said hypothecated vehicle was seized as per the instruction given by the opponent by taking proper process of law and the said vehicle was inspected, seized and details of the seized tractor and traitor copy was submitting to the brother of complainant who is one of the loan barrower and the said copy was marked as Ex.R-5. It is clearly shows that the said vehicle was seized in front of the brother of the complainant.

16. Further after all these proceedings the complainant issued the notice to the opponent on 14/11/2014which is after laps of more than two and half years to know about details of the sale value of the seized vehicle. But before issuing the legal notice the opponent have send the letter to the complainant and their brothers as regards. Seizing of the vehicle, sale value of the seized vehicle, balance due of the complainant which are marked as Ex.R-2, R-3 and R-4. Therefore knowing this fact complainant sent a legal notice only to avoid the delay for filing the complaint, there is huge amount due of complainant to pay the opponent bank. For that the opponenthas issued the legal notice dated 12/12/2010 and 12/12/2014 to pay the balance due to complainant and his brothers and also to thesurety of thesaid loan. Further the opponent produced statement of account from 1/1/2000 to 26/9/2016 the balance of amount due Rs.17,16,675/- which is marked as Ex.R-7, further a zerox copy of the debt recovery tribunal order in O.A No.1300/2015 was filed to recover theloan amount from this complainant and the said tribunal was ordered to issue recovery certificate as sought by the opponent on 24/3/2016. Hence to avoid all these proceedings the complainant has filed this complaint.

17. Further the complainant prayed that to direct the opponent to settle the due as per government instructions facilitated to farmers given by waiver of loan and loan interest, to that the burden lies upon the complainant that till today how much they have paid the loan amount and what the balance they have to pay is not at all brought to the notice of this forum.

18. The complainant produced some citations, AIR 2007SC 1349 and 2012(1) CPR 308 (NC) both these citations are not relevant to the present case.

19. In view of the above findings thereis no negligence on the part of the opponent. Hence point No 1 and 2 are answered as Negative and pass the following orders.

                                                              ::ORDER::

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No cost.  
2. Send the copies to the both parties.

 (Dictated to steno, transcribed by her and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on   25^th day of October  2016)

(RAJU N. METRI)                            (SUNANDA DURGESH)                      (B.S.MAHESHWARI)

        Member                                             President                                          Lady Member

Dist. Consumer Forum        Dist. Consumer Forum                   Dist. Consumer  Forum,                                                      Haveri                                                  Haveri.                                            Haveri.                  

smb*

                                                      ::ANNEXURE::

CC.No: 17/2015

List of Documents Exhibited for the complainant.

Ex.C-1:      legal notice dated 14/11/2014.   

Ex.C-2:      A Letter of complainant written by post master dated 3/3/2015.

Ex.C-3:      A letter of complaint settled reply

Ex.C-4 & 5: legal notice dated 12/12/2010 and 12/12/2014.  

Ex.C-5:          

List of Documents Exhibited for the opponent:-

Ex.R-1:           Motor vehicle report dated 25/11/2010.

Ex.R-2:           seizing of material with particulars.  

Ex.R-3& 4:      copy of the  letters written by Vijaya Bank 

Ex.R-5:              a letter of  seizing vehicle and recovery.  

Ex.R-6:                   copy  of the cash credit bill.  

Ex.R-7:            copy of the statement of account

Member                                        President                                               Member