Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/84/2016

Shri.C.K.Nagaraj S/o Kariyappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,State bank of Mysore - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.Thippeswamy.N

25 Mar 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:15.09.2016

DISPOSED      ON:25.03.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 84/2016

 

DATED:  25^th MARCH 2017

 

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	C.K. Nagaraj S/o Kariyappa, Age: Major, R/o Kabirananda Nagar, Muktidhama Road, Now Kawadigarahatti, II Stage, Chitradurga.     (Rep by Sri.Thippeswamy. N, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Chitradurga Main Branch, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   2. The Chief Manager, State Bank of Mysore, S.B.M. Circle, Bangalore.   3. Assistant Director, Department of Tourism, Regional Office, Opp: Fort, Kamanabhavi Extension, Chitradurga.   4. The Deputy Commissioner, Chairman of Tourism Development Committee, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate for OP No.1 & 2, Sri. C.M. Veeranna, Advocate for OP No.3 & 4)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to sanction the loan for purchasing the taxi and to pay interest at the rate of 12% to the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and in the alternate direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and mental agony, Rs.25,000/- towards expenses with cost of Rs.5,000/- in total Rs.7,60,000/- and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is having S.B A/c bearing No.64054472135 with OP No.1.  It is submitted that, on 06.02.2014 the complainant filed an application before the OP No.3 for purchase of taxi loan under SCSP/TSP Scheme. OP No.3 send the same to the OP No.4 for selecting the beneficiaries.  On 13.05.2014, OP No.3 send a letter to the complainant to attend the interview before the Assistant Commissioner and he selected as a beneficiary.  It is further submitted that, on 25.09.2014, OP No.3 send a letter to the complainant stating that, you have been selected as a beneficiary and stated that, the complainant has to open the account with the OP No.1 and submit the Xerox copy of the same to the OP No.3.  As per the instructions of OP No.3, the complainant submits that, the Xerox copy of the Pass Book to OP No.3.  It is further submits that, he contacted the OP No.1 and enquired with regard to loan.  OP No.1 stated that, the spot has been inspected by that time, the complainant was not present in the address given.  OP No.1 forwarded the same to OP No.3.  After that, the complainant requested the OP No.3 to reconsider the application filed by him.  By that time, the OP No.3 says that, the matter is in between you and OP No.1.  Subsequently, complainant approached the Manager Lead Bank and received letter and submit the same to OP No.3 for sanctioning the loan.  It is further submitted that, after inspection by OP No.1 in the new address given by the complainant i.e., House No.334, II Stage, Kawadigarhatti, the same was submitted by the complainant to OP No.3 requesting to send the same to OP No.1 for sanction of loan.  It is further submitted that, OP No.3 send a letter to OP No.1 along with DD for Rs.2,00,000/- i.e., the subsidy amount to the OP No.1 on 27.05.2015.  It is further submitted that, when the complainant approached the OP No.1 and requesting to send a DD to the Tata Show room, Chitradurga for purchasing of Car.  By that time, the OP No.1 says that if there is a recommendation by the OP No.3 for sanction of loan, the same will be considered.  But even till today, the OP No.1 never sanctioned the loan or send the DD for Rs.2,00,000/- to OP No.3, which is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1.  It is further submitted that, OP No.1 colluded with OP No.3 dodging the complainant on one or the other way, which is a deficiency of service, the same was caused mental agony to the complainant.  On 23.08.2016, complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs, the same was served.  After servicing of the notice, the OPs nor replied or sanctioned the loan.  The cause of action for the complaint arose on 25.09.2014 when the OP No.3 sent a recommendation letter to the OP No.1 and sent a DD to the OP No.1 on 27.05.2015 by the OP No.3 and legal notice dated 23.08.2016, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prays for allowing the complaint.

3.      On service of notice, OP No.1 and 2 appeared through Sri. C.J. Lakshmi Narasimha and filed version.  OP No.3 and 4 appeared through Sri. C.M. Veeranna, Advocate and filed version.    

4.      OP No.1 and 2 filed version denying the contents of complaint stating that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine with heavy cost.  The other allegations made in complaint are denied as false and the complaint is liable to be put to strict proof and the complaint is barred by limitation and bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  The OP No.1 and 2 have not committed any deficiency of service on their part and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.  It is further submitted that, the allegations made in para 2 to 14 of the complaint are denied as false mere issuing of the legal notice to the OP, it does not mean the complaint is well in time.  It is further submitted by the OP that, the complainant has suppressed the real facts. 

5.      It is further submitted that, mere having SB A/c or any type of accounts with the OP No.1 and 2 does not mean that, they have to grant the loan.  The Complainant opened S.B A/c for his convenience.  There is no proposal for sanction of any loan to the complainant and also there is no any correspondence regarding sanction of loan to the complainant.  These OPs have not received subsidy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- either from OP No.3 or 4 at any point of time.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.      

6.      OP No.3 and 4 filed version denying the averments made in para 2 to 14 of the complaint.  It is submitted that, the applications called under SCSP/TSP Scheme for sanction of subsidy amount for purchasing the vehicles.  The complainant also applied for the same.  The applications received on 30.04.2014 in the presence of Assistant Commissioner.  On 17.10.2014, the complainant received the letter from OP No.3 and submitted to the OP No.1.  On 17.10.2014, OP No.1 submitted report to the OP No.3, complainant was not residing in the given address.  It is further submitted that, on 27.05.2015, the OP No.3 sent the subsidy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the OP No.1 Bank for sanction of loan and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3 and 4.    

7.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-19 were got marked.  On behalf of OP No.1 and 2, one Sri. S.M. Nagaraj, the Manager has examined as RW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and on behalf of OP No.3, one Sri.Dr. S. Thippeswamy, the Assistant Director of Tourism, has examined as RW-2 by filing affidavit evidence.  On behalf of OP No.1 and 2 Ex.B-1 and B-2 documents were got marked. 

8.      Arguments of both sides heard.

9.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that, he is the consumer under the C.P. Act and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          10.    Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Negative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

 

REASONS

11.    It is the case of the complainant that, complainant is having S.B A/c bearing No.64054472135 with OP No.1.  On 06.02.2014 the complainant applied loan before the OP No.3 for purchase of taxi under SCSP/TSP Scheme. OP No.3 send the same to the OP No.4 for selecting the beneficiaries under the scheme.  On 13.05.2014, OP No.3 sent a letter to the complainant to attend the interview before the Assistant Commissioner and he selected as a beneficiary.  On 25.09.2014, OP No.3 sent a letter to the complainant stating that, complainant has been selected as a beneficiary and stated that, the complainant has to open the account with the OP No.1 and submit the Xerox copy of the same to the OP No.3.  As per the instructions of OP No.3, the complainant submits the Xerox copy of the Bank A/c Pass Book to OP No.3.  Complainant contacted the OP No.1 and enquired with regard to loan.  OP No.1 told that, at the time of inspection the complainant was not present in the address given.  OP No.1 forwarded the same to OP No.3.  After that, the complainant requested the OP No.3 to reconsider the application filed by him.  OP No.3 told that, the matter is in between complainant and OP No.1.  Subsequently, complainant approached the Manager Lead Bank and received letter and submit the same to OP No.3 for sanctioning the loan.  After inspection by OP No.1 in the new address given by the complainant i.e., House No.334, II Stage, Kawadigarhatti, the same was submitted by the complainant to OP No.3 requesting to send the same to OP No.1 for sanction of loan.  OP No.3 send a letter to OP No.1 along with DD for Rs.2,00,000/- i.e., the subsidy amount to the OP No.1 on 27.05.2015.  When the complainant approached and requested the OP No.1 to send a DD to Tata Show room, Chitradurga for purchasing of Car, OP No.1 says that if there is a recommendation by the OP No.3 for sanctioning of loan, the same will be considered.  OP No.1 colluded with OP No.3 dodging the complainant on one or the other way, which is a deficiency of service, the same was caused mental agony to the complainant. 

 12.   In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like legal notice dated 23.08.2016 marked as Ex.A-1, postal receipts marked as Ex.A-2, served acknowledgement marked as Ex.A-3, letter dated 23.08.2016 to Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga marked as Ex.A-4, Loan application marked as Ex.A-5, Adhar Card marked as Ex.A-6, DL marked as Ex.A-7, Endorsement dated 15.02.2014 marked as Ex.A-8, Residential Certificate marked as Ex.A-9, Election I.D. Card marked as Ex.A-10, Caste Certificate marked as Ex.A-11, Income Certificate marked as Ex.A-12, unemployed certificate marked as Ex.A-13, verification certificate marked as Ex.A-14, SSLC marks card marked as Ex.A-15, DL extract marked as Ex.A-16, Ration card marked as Ex.A-17, endorsement issued by the Tahasildar endorsing complainant is not a Government employee marked as Ex.A-18, NOC marked as Ex.A-19. 

 

13.    It is argued by the OP No.1 and 2 that, mere having SB A/c or any type of accounts with the OP No.1 and 2 does not mean that, they have to grant the loan.  The Complainant opened SB A/c for his convenience.  There is no proposal for sanction of any loan to the complainant and also there is no any correspondence regarding sanction of loan to the complainant.  These OPs have not received subsidy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- either from OP No.3 or op No.4 at any point of time.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 and 2.  

  

14.    It is argued by the OP No. 3 and 4 that, the applications have been called for under SCSP/TSP Scheme for sanction of subsidy amount for purchasing the vehicles and the complainant also applied loan under the said scheme.  The applications received on 30.04.2014 in the presence of Assistant Commissioner.  On 17.10.2014, the complainant received the letter from OP No.3 and submitted to the OP No.1.  On 17.10.2014, OP No.1 submitted report to the OP No.3, complainant was not residing in the given address.  On 27.05.2015, the OP No.3 sent the subsidy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the OP No.1 Bank for sanction of loan and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3 and 4. 

 

 15.   In support of its contention, the OP No.1 and 2 have filed affidavit evidence of its Manager and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like letter dated 21.09.2016 by the SBM to Canara Bank for sending a written confirmation with regard to the status of payment of DD No.346891 dated 27.05.2016 marked as Ex.B-1 and letter dated 21.09.2016 from the Manager, Canara Bank, Chitradurga to State Bank of Mysore marked as Ex.B-2.  

16.   On hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, the complainant applied loan before the OP No.3 for purchase of taxi under SCSP/TSP Scheme.  On 25.09.2014, OP No.3 sent a letter to the complainant stating that, complainant has been selected as a beneficiary and stated that, the complainant has to open the account with the OP No.1 and submit the Xerox copy of the same to the OP No.3.  As per the instructions of OP No.3, the complainant submits the Xerox copy of the Bank A/c Pass Book to OP No.3.  Complainant contacted the OP No.1 and enquired with regard to loan.  OP No.1 told that, at the time of inspection the complainant was not present in the address given.  OP No.1 forwarded the same to OP No.3.  After that, the complainant requested the OP No.3 to reconsider the application filed by him.  Subsequently, complainant approached the Manager Lead Bank and received letter and submit the same to OP No.3 for sanctioning of the loan.  After inspection by OP No.1 in the new address given by the complainant i.e., House No.334, II Stage, Kawadigarhatti, the same was submitted by the complainant to OP No.3 requesting to send the same to OP No.1 for sanction of loan.  OP No.3 send a letter to OP No.1 along with DD for Rs.2,00,000/- i.e., the subsidy amount to the OP No.1 on 27.05.2015.  When the complainant approached and requested the OP No.1 to send a DD to Tata Show room, Chitradurga for purchasing of Car, OP No.1 says that if there is a recommendation by the OP No.3 for sanctioning of loan, the same will be considered.  OP No.1 colluded with OP No.3 dodging the complainant on one or the other way, which is a deficiency of service, the same was caused mental agony to the complainant.    On the other hand, the OP No.1 to 3 have taken a contention in the  written arguments that, at the time of applying the loan under SCSP/TSP Scheme to obtain the subsidy amount and the loan, the complainant has produced the documents by creating and manipulating by forging documents.  To prove the same, the OP No.3 has filed a memo dated 17.03.2017 along with one document and in the said document, the Deputy Commissioner/District Tourism Development, Chitradurga has cancelled/rejected the loan application of the complainant as the documents produced by the complainant to obtain the loan under SCP/TSP were created and forged documents.  The complainant never produced any documents to show whether the OP No.1 send the DD to the OP No.3 and further complainant fails to prove that, whether the OP No.3 has received DD from the OP No.1.  The Advocates for both sides argued that, whatever the documents available in the file those documents are concocted documents but, no can specifically state as to which document is created.   OP No.1 and 2 have relied on a decision reported in 2017(1) CPJ 319 (NC) wherein it has been held that, “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d), 21(b) – Consumer – subsidy – Grant of – Complainant has not hired any service for consideration for providing subsidy and subsidy was to be disbursed as and when it was received from Central Government – complainant not consumer”.  As the decision cited by the OP No.1 and 2, it clearly goes to show that, the complainant is not a consumer.  According to the C.P Act, there is no consideration between the complainant and OPs.  Such being the case, the complainant is not a consumer.  Therefore, the prima-facie shows that, the OPs have not committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.  

17.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act, 1986 is dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 25/03/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-: ANNEXURES :-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  On behalf of OP No.3 one Sri. S.M. Nagaraj, the Manager has examined as RW-1 by filing affidavit evidence.

DW-2: on behalf of OP No.3 one Sri.Dr. S. Thippeswamy, the Assistant Director of Tourism, has examined as RW-2 by filing affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Legal notice dated 23.08.2016
02	Ex-A-2:-	Postal receipts
03	Ex-A-3:-	Served acknowledgement
04	Ex.A-4:-	Letter dated 23.08.2016 to Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga
05	Ex.A-5:-	Loan application
06	Ex.A-6:-	Adhar Card
07	Ex.A-7:-	DL
08	Ex.A-8:-	Endorsement dated 15.02.2014
09	Ex.A-9:-	Residential Certificate
10	Ex.A-10:-	Election I.D Card
11	Ex.A-11:-	Caste Certificate
12	Ex.A-12:-	Income Certificate
13	Ex.A-13:-	Unemployed certificate
14	Ex.A-14:-	Verification certificate
15	Ex.A-15:-	SSLC Markscard
16	Ex.A-16:-	DL extract
17	Ex.A-17:-	Ration card
18	Ex.A-18:-	Endorsement issued by the Tahasildar endorsing complainant is not a Government employee

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Written confirmation with regard to the status of payment of DD No.346891 dated 27.05.2016
02	Ex-B-2:-	Letter dated 21.09.2016 from the Manager, Canara Bank, Chitradurga to State Bank of Mysore

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**