DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  30^th day of November 2020

Present   : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member (President I/c)

                : Smt.Vidya.A, Member                                                                           Date of Filing: 24/09/2018

CC No.117/2018

Unnikrishnan,

S/o.Damodaran,                                                                               -                              Complainant

Geethanjali House,(Narangolil)

Koodallur(PO),

Pattambi Taluk.

Pin – 679 554.

(By Party in Person only)

The Secretary,                  

Pattambi Primary Co-operative                                                 -                             Opposite Party

        Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.,

Pattambi(PO).

(By Adv.K.Haridas)

O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, (President I/c)

Brief facts of the complaint are stated  as follows: 

Complainant being a dairy farmer contacted Agricultural Development Bank Ottapalam in the end of 2011  to increase milk production. To start a mini dairy farm  with 10 cows included in the  schemes of    Nabard, complainant contacted the bank for financial assistance and he was asked to prepare a project  and he got the same prepared by Milma.  According to the complainant since he had no land in his name, in the name of his wife (Mrs.M.T.Geetha) and himself loan was passed. The complainant pleads that in the project given by him,  Rs.5 lakh was shown,  but the field officer Mr.Rajesh told him  that Rs.5,07,000/- was passed. As mentioned in the project,  for the purpose of making cow shed,  first installment of Rs.70,000/- was given to the complainant. When complainant approached the bank for second installment, the Trithala Branch Manager of the bank Mr.Noushad came to complainant’s house and found lack of one sheet with 6 x 3  feet measurement and told the complainant  that since the making  of cow shed was not completed next installment could not be given to him. According to the complainant he told the opposite party that    grass cultivation was  started and  he purchased a kerosene engine for that purpose whose bill was shown to the bank manager. Hence, if fund for  grass cultivation was sanctioned, the sheet would be purchased and put on the roof of his cow shed. Even if the complainant told this to the bank manager the bank refused to pay the second installment. Finally from  “blade” money lenders Rs.500/ was borrowed and sheet was put and only after that second installment was given to him, as pleaded by the     complainant. But 2^nd installment was instructed by the bank to be used not for grass cultivation but for purchase of 5 cows. The bank manager asked  the complainant for proof of purchasing five cows, and told him that  if  paper for insuring cows  is  produced, then amount for cows will be given to the complainant.  On 13/4/2012, document for insuring 5 cows was produced by the complainant  before the bank, then recording the date as 11/4/2012,  Rs.1,62,000/-was given to the complainant. For  grass cultivation and other purposes, fund was afterwards, complainant was told.  On 17/9/2012, Rs.1,50,000/- was given, according  to  the complainant. Thus in  3 instalments Rs.3,82,000/- was given to the complainant. In the first phase 5 cows were bought, after 6 months in the last phase, when asked for fund, complainant was told by the opposite party that now no fund  came afterwards.    Then many times, complainant went to  the opposite party bank but money was not received by him,  as pleaded by the complainant. Complainant also pleads that  Milk production of first bought  cows stopped, two cows died due to KOLAMBU disease, so without getting 5 cows money cannot be repaid. When complainant asked this to the  opposite party bank manager,  complainant was told that it is for Nabard to give money and the opposite party bank has no money to give, for which Nabard was sent an application and after months manager told the complainant that no fund with Nabard and his application was returned by Nabard. When complainant  contacted the Palakkad office of Nabard and asked them  about this complainant was told by Nabard that due to lack of fund no application was returned by Nabard. Complainant also pleads that for a person getting loan of Rs.5 lakhs that much amount should be given by the bank and if Rs. 5 lakh loan was taken subsidy amount of Rs.1,25,000/- will be allowed, which will be given to the bank and that amount  will be credited  to repayment account of the complainant and the complainant is not seen taken  Rs.5 lakh loan but only Rs.3,82,000/- loan seen taken by the complainant. Hence, subsidy cannot be given, as stated by Nabard. Complainant further pleads that when each instalment is given from which  huge amount is withheld or recovered by the bank. Hence, 12%  interest becomes 16%.  In this way from the complainant Rs.17872/- was recovered by the bank. According to the complainant other banks  are not recovering this much amount. Deficiencies like this occurred on the part of the opposite party  bank. Complainant also alleges that the bank acts as if they were   “blade’ money lenders. Since loan taken by the complainant was not repaid by him, 3 persons from the bank went to complainant’s sisters house and threatened her.  Complainant also alleges that to his neighbours it was told that complainant was not repaying money and  complainant to be told to repay the loan. Complainant also alleges that intermittently complainant was threatened and complainant also points out anomalies in accounts existed on 8/11/17 when complainant was telling Rs.6,02,182/-, on 17/3/18 as Rs.4,55,148/-, as  he was told like this on 20/3/15 as    Rs.453400/- when told on  1/7/2015 it was told  as Rs.316330/-. Complainant pleads that  the opposite party bank acted  as if  it was disgracing country money lenders.

Hence the complainant prays to this Forum that as loan amount was not fully given, his scheme has to be given up in the mid way, which caused to the complainant loss in addition to  loss of pride and mental agony. Therefore complainant prays to this Forum for an order directing the opposite party to give a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to enable him to complete the project.

The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party to enter appearance and filed its version. In the version filed by the opposite party it is contended that this opposite party denies those statements in the complaint except those  which are expressly agreed and admitted by this opposite party. This complaint is filed stating false matters with a view to cause difficulties to this opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to any relief and this complaint is devoid of good faith and hence complaint is to be dismissed prima facie.  In the first para of the complaint it is correct that the complainant had applied for a loan in the opposite party bank but it is not correct that the bank has sanctioned Rs.5,70,000/-, only Rs.382000/- was sanctioned by the board of directors of the bank on the basis of technical report of agricultural officer. As the  loan was sanctioned as per the decision of the bank’s board of directors  loan sanction order was prepared and in the complaint of the complainant,  complainant’s wife signed. On  the basis of Utlisation Certificate given by the official of the concerned branch, the remaining installments are sanctioned. It  is not known to this opposite party that complainant has borrowed Rs.500/- from ‘blade’ money lenders for putting 1 tin sheet on the roof of his cow shed. Towards the above loan  Rs.70,000/- on 10/1/2012, Rs.1,62,000/- on 11/4/2012 and on 17/9/2012 Rs.1,50,000/-  was received by Mrs.Geetha. After the passage of 6 months of the purchase of 5 cows  the statement that  no fund was available is not correct. For the death of cows this opposite party has no responsibility. Regarding the  statement of the complainant  about Nabard this  opposite party, has no knowledge.  This opposite party contends that  no official of the opposite party bank has stated to the complainant  that Rs.1,25,000/- will be received and there is no such stipulation. Also the statement that huge amounts were recovered to pay the installments is not correct; only 14% is the interest,  that Rs.17,872 was recovered is not correct. Loan amount, 5% share legal fee, application fee,  site inspection fees only were remitted by the applicant Mrs.M.T.Geetha. Share amount will be returned  at the time of closure of the  loan. This opposite party also contends that no one from the bank had threatened.    There is no anomaly in the accounts. This opposite party is ready to give statement of account, if demanded. After receiving the loan the complainant has paid only Rs.52,350/- towards principal, Rs.43,668/- towards interest, Rs.4488/- towards penal interest. As the loan became in arrears, branch manager sent a notice, to which the complainant or his wife did not give any reply. Hence, loan was foreclosed, the sales officer, concerned was entrusted to take  auction  measures and he took steps. The opposite party also contends that from this opposite party bank no reverse steps  were taken against this complainant customer. No deficiency in service has occurred  on the part of this opposite party. Complainant is not entitled to any amount and relief as mentioned in the complaint. Hence the opposite party prays to this honourable Forum to accept their contentions and dismiss the complaint.

Complainant filed his affidavit and additional affidavit.  Opposite party filed IA 18/19,  seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. No objection submitted by the complainant  and hence his IA allowed. Opposite party did  not file affidavit and  hence evidence closed. Opposite party filed IA 95/19 to reopen evidence  to which counter also filed. Heard and in the interest of justice IA allowed. Opposite party filed documents and affidavit.  Ext.A1 to A6 marked from complainant’s side, Ext.A2 and A3 are marked in series and Ext.B1 to B4 series marked  from opposite party’s side. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. Complainant filed IA 174/19 to cross examine the opposite party. No objection submitted by the opposite party to this IA and hence  IA was allowed.  Opposite party was cross examined as DW1. Both parties heard. Complainant filed notes and opposite party did not file notes.

The following issues are considered in this case.

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of

  opposite party bank

2.If yes, the relief and cost available to the complainant.

Issues 1 & 2 in detail

Complainant filed Ext.A1 to A6  (Ext.A2 & A3 in series) to prove his pleadings. Ext.A1 is a registered notice sent by sales officer of the Opposite Party bank to the complainant as per section 20 Rule8(c) intimating him of the proposed sale of the mortgaged properties to recover the loan amount from the loanee which shows the amount to be repaid by the complainant towards principal as Rs.345957/-, towards interest as Rs.56,570/-, towards penal interest  as Rs.979/- miscellaneous expenses as Rs.205/-, total amount to be repaid as Rs.403711/-. Ext.A2 series are notices  sent to the loanee (wife of the complainant) by the Secretary of the opposite party bank which shows amount to be paid by the loanee towards loan taken by her  from the opposite party bank the repayment date, loan number as         TFDD002/2011-12, notice charge, miscellaneous expenses,  penalty interest, balance towards principal, due date as 1/7/2015, current installment towards interest and towards principal. It also discloses that notice sent by OP bank Secretary addressed to the loanee (Mrs.Geetha) to repay the loan a/c No.TFDD/7/2/11 which shows loan arrear amount as Rs.50300/- and also intimates  that as per Aswas Scheme an Adalath would be conducted at Kootanad branch of the bank at 10.30am on 2/2/2016 and Aswas 2016 notice to the loanee dated 12/1/16,  demand notice dated 8/11/17 to the loanee.  Ext.A3 series are receipts dated 17/9/12, 10/1/12, 27/10/11, 15/10/11, 11/04/12 issued by branch manager to the loanee. Ext.A4  is a letter issued by United India Insurance company limited for receipt of Rs.8,427/- from Agricultural Development Bank Kootanad branch towards cattle insurance – cash premium plus service tax  plus education cess. Ext.A5 is loan account pass book  which shows member No., name of member, loan account no. etc. which also shows balance outstanding from the loanee as Rs.3,45,957/-. Ext.A6 is a bill issued to the complainant dated 16/1/2012 which proves the purchase of various items by the complainant from Sagar Agencies Tirur. Opposite party has submitted Ext.B1 to B4 series to defend its contentions. Ext.B1 is loan application given  by loanee which shows name and address of the loanee,  particulars of the mortgaged properties, affidavit signed by loanee  (Mrs.Geetha)  and the complainant,   Ext.B2 is loan sanction order which shows loan application number, membership number applicants name, nature of loan, amount of loan applied for, amount of loan sanctioned, decision number and date particulars of mortgaged land, terms and conditions of the loan, repayment conditions etc. Ext.B3 is Gahan signed by loanee and complainant which shows their permanent address. Ext.B4 series are acknowledgement receipts dated 2012 September 17 for Rs.1,50,000/-, 2012 January for Rs.70,000/- and 2012 April for Rs.1,62,000/- given by the complainant Mr.Unnikrishnan.

We have perused the affidavits and documentary evidences submitted by both parties before this Forum and observe  that Mrs.M.T.Geetha wife of the complainant has applied for a loan of Rs.5 lakh in the end of 2011 from Pattambi branch of Ottapalam Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., on 15/10/2011 which is clear from Ext.B1 which is the loan application given for dairy farm, but Rs.3,82,000/- was sanctioned on 29/12/2011 which is evident from Loan Sanction Order dated 30/12/2011 of the opposite party.  Out of Rs.3,82,000/- loan sanctioned, Rs.1,50,000/- was received on 17/09/2012 by the complainant, Rs.70,000/- was received on 10/01/2012 and Rs.1,62,000/- was received by the complainant on 11/04/2012 which  is clear from Exts.B4 series produced  by the opposite party which are three receipts signed by the complainant.  We also observe that the sanctioned amount of Rs.3,82,000/-  was entirely given to the loanee which is also clear from Ext.B4 series.  We also see that as per Ext.B3 which is Gehan signed by Mrs.Geetha, the liability is Rs.3,82,000/- which is admitted by the complainant in his deposition before this Forum as PW1 on 19/06/2019 when he was cross examined by the opposite party’s counsel.  We also observe that though NABARD is one of the main parties in this case complainant has not impleaded it as a party in the opposite party array in this case.  Complainant himself admits that for purchasing 10 cows loan was sanctioned by the opposite party bank, but only 5 cows were bought  by him which shows deficiency on his part.  Complainant’s statement that if 5 lakh rupees loan is taken, Rs.1,25,000/- subsidy would be obtained by him, as told by Veterinary Surgeon of Anakkara Panchayath, an employee of NABARD, Dr.George Joseph of MILMA, but to verify this  no steps were seen taken by the complainant to cross examine these persons as witnesses before this Forum; we also understand that for cow shed Rs.70,000/- is mentioned in the project as stated by the complainant and which is sanctioned by opposite party bank.  Then for purchasing cows by two installments  amount was given – Rs.3 lakh was sanctioned for purchasing 10 cows @Rs.30,000/- per cow,  for purchasing 5 cows Rs.1,50,000/- and for bringing them Rs. 12,000/- was given and on 3^rd  installment for purchasing 5 cows Rs.1,50,000/- was sanctioned, but  the same was not seen utilized by the complainant for purchasing 5 cows, but misutilized the same by the complainant, all of which are clear from DW1 deposition on 06/12/2019 before this Forum. At the same time we observe that to get project subsidy, application of the complainant is not seen sent to NABARD by the opposite party bank as the opposite party has given a vague answer in his above deposition as “full utilization D­msb¦n am{Xta At]£ sImSp¡m³ ]äpIbpÅq.  A¶s¯ sk{I«dn Rm³ AÃmbncp¶p.”  From this we can also  presume that complainant’s application for subsidy is not seen given by opposite party bank Secretary to   NABARD in this  case,  which also  shows grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party bank.  We also view that as per Ext.B2(Loan Sanction Order) produced by the opposite party bank there are certain conditions to be satisfied by the loanee for availing fully loan installments as “c­mat¯Xv apX XpSÀ¶pÅ KUp¡Ä t\cs¯ hm§nb KUp¡fpsS ]cn]qÀ® hn\ntbmKw km£ys¸Sp¯nb tcJIÄ _Ôs¸« DtZymKØ·mcnÂ\n¶v e`n¨Xn\ptijw am{Xta hnXcWw sN¿pIbpÅq.  GsX¦nepw KUp ZpÀhn\ntbmKw sNbvXXmbn / amän sNehm¡nbXmbn Adnbn¸v _Ôs¸« DtZymKØ·mcnÂ\n¶pw In«pIbmsW¦n Xm¦Ä¡v XpSÀ¶pÅ KUp¡Ä hnXcWw sN¿p¶XÃm¯Xpw hmbv]m XpI apgph\pw Xm¦fnÂ\n¶pw sam¯ambn CuSm¡m³ _m¦n\v ]cn]qÀ® A[nImchpw AhImihpw D­mbncn¡p¶XmIp¶p.”  In this case first installment of loan of Rs.70,000/- was given to the complainant for constructing and completing cow shed, but we observe that cow shed is not completed because there is shortage of one “takaram sheet” for the roof of the cow shed of the complainant which is also admitted by the complainant.  Similarly as DW1 deposition made by Secretary of opposite party bank on 06/12/2019 “sXmgp¯n\v 70,000 BWv t{]mPIvSn ]dªncn¡p¶Xv.  AXv R§Ä AwKoIcn¨p.  ]n¶oSv ]ip hm§n¡m³ c­v tSambn«mWv sImSp¡p¶Xv.  10 ]iphmWv Bhiys¸«Xv.  Hcp ]iphn\v 30,000/- h¨v 3,00,000/þ cq] R§Ä AwKoIcn¨p.  CXv tI{µ _m¦v \nba§Ä¡v hnt[bambmWv A\phZn¨Xv.  5 ]iphn\mWv BZyw sImSp¯Xv.  c­mas¯ KUphmbn 5 ]ip¡sf hm§n¡m³ 1,50,000/þhpw sIm­phcm\mbn 12,000/þ cq]bpamWv A\phZn¨Xv.  B 5 ]ip¡sf C³jpÀ sNbvX tcJIÄ AhÀ lmPcm¡pIbpw sNbvXp.  ]n¶oSv Bdv amkw Ignªv ASp¯ 5 ]ip¡sf sImSp¯p.  AXv 2012 \hw_dn sImSp¯n«p­v.   F¶m AXv AhÀ ]iphns\ hm§m³ D]tbmKn¨nÃ.  ZpÀhn\ntbmKw sNbvXp.  B kvIow H¶pw CÃmXm¡n XoÀ¯Xv AhcmWv.  AhcpsS `mK¯p\n¶pw h¶ sXäpsIm­v B t{]mPIvSv apt¶m«v t]mIm³ IgnªnÃ.  Cu ]²Xn \S¸m¡nsb¦n am{Xta k_vknUn In«pIbpÅp.  icnbmb coXnbn bq«nssekv sNbvXnsæn k_vknUn s¢bnw sN¿m³]änÃ.” This deposition proves that complainant not properly utlised the sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 3,82,000/-.  Further we also observe that as per DW1 deposition “full utilization D­msb¦n am{Xta At]£ sImSp¡m³ ]äpIbpÅq.”  Also we observe that no written instructions are seen given to the complainant  by the opposite party bank regarding how sanctioned amount of Rs.3,82,000/- given to the complainant should be utilized by the complainant which also  shows deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  As per PW1 deposition before this Forum on 19/06/2019 “Ext.B2 {]Imcw 3,82,000/þ am{Xta ]mÊm¡nbn«p­v.  _m¡n 1,25,000/þ cq] NABARD Xcpsa¶v A¶s¯ Iqä\mSv {_m©nsâ amt\PÀ ]dªp. But NABARD was not impleaded as an opposite party by the complainant which is clear from PW1 deposition on 19/06/2019 as “NABARDs\ Cu tIkn I£n tNÀ¯n«nÃ.  AXnsâ BhiyanÃ.”  We also observe that the Veterinary  Surgeon of Anakkara Panchayath, employee of NABARD, Dr.George Joseph of MILMA are said  have stated that if 5 lakh rupees loan  is taken, Rs.1,25,000/- subsidy will be obtained by the complainant which is stated by the complainant in his affidavit and notes but we observe that  no steps were seen taken by the complainant  to examine these witnesses to clarify whether complainant would get subsidy of Rs.1,25,000/- on his loan.  Further we also view that to prove the affidavit given by Mrs.Indira, sister of the complainant, no steps are taken by the complainant to examine her to prove what is stated in her affidavit.  Also the opposite party has not returned complainant’s subsidy application stating that the project execution is not properly completed and so complainant is not eligible for  any subsidy from NABARD which also demonstrates deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank. “If NABARD denies subsidy to the complainant, that fact should have been informed to the financial institutions which recommend for subsidy, which in this case is the opposite party bank. But  the  opposite party bank  has not given any document  or paper which must have been received from NABARD denying subsidy to the complainant  with reasons for denial of subsidy  which shows that and proves that this opposite party has not applied and recommended for getting subsidy to the complainant with NABARD in this case which also proves deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank.   Finally complainant’s statement that he is a cancer patient and requiring Rs.80,000/- per month for medicines etc., but no evidence is produced by him to that effect and also the opposite party is not seen given any amount to the complainant for grass cultivation though  grass is an essential food for the 10 cows purchased by the complainant. The complainant has not been seen to have submitted a copy of his mini dairy project given to the opposite party bank, to this Forum and the opposite party bank is not seen given written instructions to the complainant regarding utilization of  given loan,  for cowshed construction, for purchase of 10 cows and  amount needed for bringing them to complainant’s cow shed which also shows deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank.

            Thus we observe that the opposite party bank has sanctioned only Rs.3,82,000/-(Rupees Three lakh Eighty Two thousand only) for construction of cowshed, buying of 10 cows, for bringing them to cowshed of the complainant but no amount is seen sanctioned for grass cultivation and purchase of necessary items for the cultivation of grass necessary for cows, namely pump set etc. which shows opposite party’s deficiency in service.  Also we view that the opposite party bank is not seen to have  recommended and sent complainant’s application for getting subsidy to NABARD and has not given detailed instructions regarding the utilization of sanctioned loan amount of Rs.3,82,000/- which all show deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  We view that if the opposite party bank had done the above and thus enabled the complainant to complete his mini dairy project, complainant could have been saved from a lot of sufferings and financial difficulties and consequent huge mental agony caused to complainant’s and his family.  At the same time, we view that complainant has not taken any steps to implead NABARD as an essential opposite party in this case, although it was a necessary opposite party and to examine the important  witnesses mentioned above, namely veterinary surgeon of Anakkara panchayath, employee of NABARD, Dr.George Joseph of MILMA and complainant’s sister Mrs.Indira.

            In the light of all  these circumstances, we decide to partly allow the complaint.  

            We order the  opposite party bank to take necessary steps immediately  to get subsidy of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty five thousand only) from NABARD to the complainant  by enabling him  to complete his dream mini dairy project; we also direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation towards the financial difficulties and much mental agony caused to him and his wife  due to the non completion of his dream mini dairy project and his not  being enabled by opposite party bank to get  NABARD subsidy by  not helping him to  complete his mini diary project. .

            This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to get interest @9% per annum on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of November  2020.

                                                                                       Sd/-

   V.P.Anantha Narayanan      

                                         Member (President I/c)

                                                         Sd/-

 Vidya.A

                    Member           

                                                                              Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 - Registered notice sent by sales officer of the Opposite Party bank to the

               complainant dated 07/04/2014.

Ext.A2(series) - Notices  sent to the loanee (wife of the complainant) by the Secretary of the

opposite party bank

Ext.A3(series) - Receipts dated 17/9/12, 10/1/12, 27/10/11, 15/10/11, 11/04/12 issued by  branch manager  of the opposite party bank to the loanee.

Ext.A4 - Letter issued by United India Insurance company limited dated 13/04/2012 for  receipt of 8427/ towards cattle insurance.

Ext.A5 – Loan account Pass book issued by the opposite party bank to the complainant’s wife .

Ext.A6- Bill dated 16/01/2012 issued to the complainant  which proves the purchase of  various items by the complainant from Sagar Agencies Tirur for grass cultivation.

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party

Ext.B1 - Loan application form given by loanee

Ext.B2 - Loan sanction order given by the opposite party bank

Ext.B3 -   Gahan signed by complainant’s wife and complainant

Ext.B4(series) – Acknowledgement receipts dated 2012 September 17 for Rs.1,50,000/-,

                           2012 January for Rs.70,000/- and 2012 April for Rs.1,62,000/- given by the

                           complainant.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 - Unnikrishnan

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW1 - Kunjimarakkar

Cost :   Nil