CC Filed on 03.10.2007<br /> Disposed on 16.04.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated 16.04.2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.189/2007<br /> <br /> Sri. P.R.Subramani,<br /> S/o Ramakrishnappa,<br /> Advocate,<br /> Practicing at Mulbagal,<br /> Aged about 29 years,<br /> R/o Puttenahalli Village,<br /> M.N.Halli Post, Tayalur Hobli,<br /> Mulbagal Taluk. Complainant <br /> (By Advocate Sri. S.Basheer Ahamed & Others)<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. The Managing Director,<br /> Karnataka Schedule caste and <br /> Schedule Tribes Development<br /> Corporation Ltd., <br /> 9th and 10th Building,<br /> Vishweshwaraiaha Chikka Gopura,<br /> Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Street,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> Kolar District,<br /> Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Abhivrudhi Nigama,<br /> Kolar. Opposite Parties <br /> (By Advocate Sri. M.Muniyappa)<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant with costs etc.,<br /> CC No.189/2007<br /> 2. The material facts of the complainant’s case are as fallows: That the complainant belongs to Schedule caste and he passed LLB and he was enrolled on 16.04.2004 to practice as an Advocate. He applied for loan with opposite parties to run his office. The opposite parties after considering the loan application sanctioned loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by sanction order dated 17.04.2006. The sanction order contains instructions regarding the documents to be produced and the securities to be given and also the terms regarding interest chargeable and the repayment of loan. This sanction order states that the loan sanctioned subsists for 30 days from the date of sanction and thereafter it lapses automatically. This condition implied that all the required formalities were to be completed within 30 days from 17.04.2006 and the loan was to be released to the grantee within that date. <br /> <br /> This sanction order dated 17.04.2006 was served on complainant by opposite party No.2 on 05.05.2006 leaving only 12 days time to comply the terms of the said sanction order. The complainant requested another 15 days time to fulfill the formalities, by writing a letter dated 16.05.2006 which was sent through courier on 17.05.2006. It was served on the next day on opposite party No.1. But no reply was received by complainant. <br /> <br /> Opposite party No.1 sent reminder letter dated 18.05.2006 to complainant intimating to furnish the required documents and to fulfill the conditions of loan on or before 25.05.2006 and on failure, the loan would be cancelled. But this letter was posted on 26.05.2006 at Bangalore and it was received by complainant subsequently.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.189/2007<br /> The complainant received on 16.07.2007 another reminder letter dated 30.06.2006 to fulfill the loan conditions within 07.07.2006 and further intimating that the grant of loan would be cancelled if the conditions were not fulfilled. This letter was posted on 08.07.2006 at Bangalore.<br /> <br /> The complainant received on 08.12.2006 the final reminder letter dated 28.11.2006 intimating to fulfill the conditions on or before 05.12.2006 and on failure the loan would be cancelled. This letter was posted at Bangalore on 04.12.2006. The complainant contends that he spent huge amount for collecting documents and he suffered mental agony. Therefore he claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed their version. They admitted the sanction of loan in favour of complainant and they contended that inspite of sufficient opportunity the complainant failed to fulfill the terms of loan by executing the required documents and furnishing securities. <br /> <br /> 4. The respective parties filed affidavits and documents. At the time of argument both parties remained absent, therefore the argument is taken as heard. We perused the documents.<br /> <br /> 5. The following questions arise for our consideration:<br /> 1) Whether there is deficiency in service by opposite parties or any of them?<br /> 2) If so to which compensation the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 3) What order?<br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.189/2007<br /> 6. After considering the records our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: The grievance of the complainant is that the letters / reminders were sent intentionally without providing sufficient time to fulfill the conditions or they were sent after the date prescribed for fulfilling the conditions. He contended that he was not given reply for his queries with ulterior motive. In the version or in the affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties nowhere it is contended that the sanction letter or the subsequent reminders were sent immediately after preparing them and there were no delay in dispatching them. The complainant has produced Xerox copes of the envelops under which he received different reminders, which disclose from the postal seals that these reminders were posted at Bangalore after lapse of period prescribed for fulfilling the terms of loan. Therefore we are clearly of the opinion that the sanction letter or the reminders were not sent within reasonable time after its preparation and they were sent only after the prescribed period for fulfilling the terms of loan. This must have been done by some clerk in the office of opposite party No.1 with ulterior motive, without the knowledge of the officer concerned. Therefore we hold that there is deficiency in service by opposite party No.1. <br /> <br /> Point No.2: Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we think, compensation of Rs.10,000/- may be awarded to complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.189/2007<br /> Point No.3: For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is partly allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The opposite party No.1 shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. The opposite party No.1 is at liberty to recover the cost and the compensation paid from such of the defaulting official. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 16th day of April 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />