District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 28/07/2009
CC. No.107/2009
C.S.Sivakumar
S/o.K.Saseendran
Sreedevi Nivas
Kumbidi.P.O
Palakkad 679 553. - Complainant
(By Adv.N.Anoopkumar)
Vs
The Senior Branch Manager
Punjab National Bank
Pattambi Branch 679303. - Opposite party
(By Adv.A.Gourisankar & G.Ananthakrishnan)
O R D E R
By Smt.Seena.H, President
In short the case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant availed a agricultural loan vide loan A/c No.140/2005 for Rs.1,25,000/- pledging gold on 09/11/2005 from the opposite party complying the formalities of agricultural loan. As the complainant incurred heavy loss in agriculture due to failure of monsoon, he was unable to repay the loan amount. The grievance of the complainant is that after the loan agreement was executed, opposite party after some time converted it into non-agricultural loan whereby complainant has incurred an enhanced rate of interest of 8.75% and further lost benefit of waiver of the loan under Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. Complainant made representation to all the concerned authorities including the Banking Ombudsman. Ombudsman has ordered that it has not jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Complainant prays for an order:
1. Directing opposite party to classify the loan amount No.140/2005 as agricultural loan and consequently to reduce the interest rate to 7%.
2. Directing the opposite party to close the gold loan account and to return the gold ornaments pledged by including it in the Debt Waiver Scheme and if it is not possible to compensate with all the amount due and pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony.
Opposite party filed version contending the following. Opposite party admitted availing of gold loan of Rs.1,25,000/- pledging gold ornaments. Amount has to repaid with interest @ 8.75% within a period of 24 months. According to opposite party the loan sanctioned was purely as non-agricultural gold loan. When the Government declared Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme the borrower requested the bank to include his case in the scheme. Since he is not eligible for the same bank could not do so. The head office of the bank has also gone through the matter at the request of the complainant and has found that he is not eligible for waiver. Complainant has also approached the Banking Ombudsman. According to opposite party complainant has approached the forum as a last resort to delay and deny repayment of the gold loan. Opposite party deny the allegation of the complainant that the word ‘non’ was inserted by the branch authorities after the announcement of the scheme. In application form executed and delivered by the complainant, he has specifically stated that he is non agriculturist Advocate. Complainant has not produced any document to show that he owned agricultural land at the relevant point of time nor did he produced any possession certificate or land tax receipt to enable him to avail agricultural gold loan which has lesser rate of interest. A sum of Rs.1,63,264/- is due to opposite party as on 29/11/2008. Complainant is not entitled for any benefit under the Debt Waiver Scheme.
The evidence led by the complainant consists of the Chief Affidavit and Exts.A1 to A6 documents. Opposite party filed affidavit and Ext.B1 to B4 documents. Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and opposite party cross examined as DW1.
Now the issues for consideration are;
1. Whether the loan availed by the complainant is an agricultural gold loan or gold loan?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for a waiver under the agricultural debt waiver scheme?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
4. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?
Issues 1 to 3:
The averment of the complainant is that he has availed an agricultural gold loan for Rs.1,25,000/- from the opposite party complying the formalities of agricultural loan. According to the complainant, loan application form was filled by the bank authorities subsequent to his putting of signature. Branch authorities has stated it will be filled in consonance with the complainants requirements. Further allegation of the complainant is that the word ‘non’ in front of agriculture was inserted by opposite party subsequently. Opposite party on the other hand contented that the agreement was executed by the complainant himself and the loan availed by him is a gold loan and not agricultural gold loan. Opposite party denied the say of the complainant that the word ‘non’ was inserted by them.
The evidence in this regard is Ext.B1 which is loan application executed by the complainant. Signature in the application is admitted by the complainant. The said application form does not reveal the fact that it is an agricultural gold loan. Further the column for filling the purpose of availing gold loan is left blank. 1st opposite party has deposed while examination to the effect that if the purpose is agriculture, it will be mentioned and it is a non agricultural gold loan, purpose may be anything hence it will not be mentioned. We do not find any reason to disbelieve this statement. So we are of the view that if it was an agricultural gold loan as contented by the complainant, definitely it would have find a place in the said column.
Further complainant has submitted that he has only put his signature in the application and all the entries are made by the branch authorities. Opposite party has denied the say of the complainant. In this regard also we find that there is no concrete evidence to show who has filled up the entries. Complainant has not taken any step to send it to handwriting expert. The say of the complainant would have been relevant if he was a layman.
Complainant strongly rely on the column 1 of the application (Ext.A5) wherein according to the complainant his occupation is shown non agriculture advocate. On going through Ext.A5 we also find that the fact that it’s a non agriculture loan is mentioned in the occupation column. In Ext.A5 it is written non-agriculture-advocate. So we do not agree with the complainant’s say that he is referred to an agriculture advocate. It is stated as two words. Further the say of the complainant whether the word ‘non’ has been inserted or not, there is absolutely no evidence. DW1 while cross examination has deposed that the hand writing in Ext.A5 is not of Chitrabhanu who is the then Manager. Also deposed that it is only for the layman and illiterate person that the Bank Manager will fill up the application form.
In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the complainant miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
In the result, complaint dismissed. Orders in IA passed shall stands vacated.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of November, 2010
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H,
President
Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K,
Member
Appendix
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant
PW1 – C.S.Sivakumar
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite party
DW1 – Subramanian.M
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Copy of letter sent by complainant to opposite party dt.28/07/08
Ext.A2 – Letter dt.08/08/2008 sent by opposite party to complainant
Ext.A3 – Letter dt.07/11/08 sent from complaint cell of opposite party to complainant
Ext.A4 (Series) – Copy of letter dt.25/08/2008 sent by complainant to opposite party
Ext.A5 – Photocopy of application for loan against gold ornaments
Ext.A6 – Loan ticket
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1 – Photocopy of application for loan against gold ornaments
Ext.B2 - Photocopy of promissory Note given by complainant to opposite party
Ext.B3 - Photocopy of letter sent from complaint cell of opposite party to complainant
Ext.B4 - Photocopy of letter of Banking Ombudsman
