::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.64/2017.
Date of filing: 07.10.2017.
Date of disposal: 22.05.2018.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Nagshetty S/o Dhulappa,
Age: 71 years, (Senior Citizen) Occ: Agri,
R/o Chatnalli Village Tq and Dist: Bidar.
(By Sri. P.M.Deshpande., Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) The Managing Director, DCC Bank Ltd,
Basaveshwar Circle, Hyderabad Road
Tq and Dist: Bidar.
2) the Chief Executive Officer,
PKPS Ltd. Chatnalli Tq and Dist: Bidar.
(By. R.1. Sri. Sanjaykumar S. Patil., Adv.
R.2. Exparte.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
The complainant is before this forum by filing a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging as underneath.
2. That, he is an agriculturist and owns two patches of land bearing Sy.Nos.234/C measuring Ac. 2.28 guntas in Chatnalli Village and No.477 measuring Ac. 2.20 guntas in Bagdal Village. Both the lands are adjoining each other. For development of agriculture, he had approached the opponents for sanction of loan of Rs.6 lakhs, with project report, which was accepted by the opponents. Consequentially, the lands were mortgaged with opponent No.2 and loan amount was sanctioned in his favour.
3. As per suggestions of the opponents, he commenced preliminary work of digging irrigation well, leveling the land and had obtained sanction for power supply. Inspite of completion of legal formalities, and incurring huge expenditures by doing all the requirements for sustainable agricultural activities the loan was never disbursed to him for which he is before us alleging deficiency of service in the part of the opponents so also unfair trade practice.
4. Upon notice, inspite of several adjournments the O.P.No.2 remained absent and hence was placed exparte on 11.01.2018. O.P.No.1, however has put up appearances through counsel and though has denied the developmental work on the lands has taken a defence in the versions that, the D.C.C. Bank is only a nodal agency providing financial supports to out fits like O.P.No.2 to provide agricultural loans and assistance to agriculturists as per rules and procedures.
5. The complainant as well as the O.P.No.1 have file their respective evidence affidavits and written arguments reiterating their respective stands. Only complainant has submitted documents listed at the end of this order.
6. Basing on the pleadings, we fix the following points for consideration.
- Does the complainant prove deficiency of service and un trade practice?
- What orders?
7. Our answers to points are as following:-
- In affirmative only against O.P. No.2.
- As per final orders owing to the following:-
:: REASONS ::
8. The veracity of the complaint is glaring at the face owing to the over whelming documentary proof (s) submitted by the complainant and deliberate absence of the O.P.No.2 from the proceedings. It proves, all is not well in the affairs of the O.P.No.2, which is a state instrumentality partially. We decry such attitude and apathy of the institutions holding the citizens in ransoms.
9. Documents at Annexures Z1 to Z3 prove the O.P.No.2 accepting the mortgage of the lands of complainant Documents at annexures F to W prove the fact of the necessary developmental work on the fields for sustainable agriculture operation and all these documents have remained unchallenged. There are sufficient documents in the record proving the genuine ownership of the complainant over the captioned lands. After completion of all legal formalities like execution of the mortgage deed and submission of project report which was accepted without demur, it was the bun den duty of the O.P.No.2 to release the loan in favour of the complainant to undertake ungoing works and by not doing so, the P.K.P.S. Ltd., Chatnalli undoubtedly has resorted to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The O.P.No.2 has further caused loss of the usufruct of the complainants investment and unparalleled mental an financial agonies to him. Therefore, holding th points No.1 accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER.
- The complaint is allowed in part.
- The O.P.No.2 is hereby directed to disburse the loan amount of Rs.6 lakhs in favour of the complainant;
- The complaint as against O.P.No.1 is dismissed;
- The O.P.NO.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the dead investment incurred by him, together with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-;
- A copy of this order be transmitted to the Assistant Director, Publicity and information, near Railway Station, Bidar for wide publicity;
- Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 22nd day of May 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure. A- Service certificate of GESCOM.
- Annexure. B– Office copy of legal notice.
- Annexure. C– Well ownership certificate.
- Annexure.D—R.T.C. of Sy.No.477 of Bagdal village.
- Annexure. E– R.T.C. of Sy.No.234(C).
- Annexure.F to W- Color Photos.
- Annexure.X- Mutation register extract.
- Annexure.Y- Project report.
- Annexure.Z- Copy of photo I.D.Card.
- Annexure.Z1 to Z3- E.C.S.
Document produced by the Opponents.
-Nil-
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Nagashetty S/o Dhulappa. (complainant).
Opponent No.1
- R.W.1- Mallikarjuna, Manager And chief Executive of O.P.No.1.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
