DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of January 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 25/04/2014
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.62/2014)
Nafeesa Moidu,
W/o.K.N.Moidu,
Karuvathinalil House,
Mala Post, Kakkattiri, Trithala,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)
V/s
1.The Union Bank of India,
Regd.Office, Head Offie,
239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg,
Central Office,
Nariman Point,
Mumbai – 400 021
2.The Managing Director / Chairman,
The Union Bank of India,
239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg,
Central Office, Nariman Point,
Mumbai – 400 021
3.The Branch Manager
M/s.Union Bank of India,
Pattithara Branch, Aloor P.O.
Pattithara via,
Trithala,
Palakkad – 679 540
(By Adv.S.T.Suresh)
4.The Joint Secretary,
Union of India,
Dept.of Economic Affairs,
Room No.67B, North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001
5.The Under Secretary,
Dept.of Agriculture and
Corporation, Krishi Bhavan,
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi – 1 - Opposite parties
(By Adv.P.K.Devadas)
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of complaint.
The complainant is a housewife and she has some landed property. She does agricultural activities with the said property. She uses the proceeds from the agriculture produce for her own and for her family’s livelihood. For that purpose she has availed an agricultural loan from 3rd opposite party in the year 2003. 1st opposite party is the registered and Corporate office and 2nd opposite party is its branch office. The complainant is having the agricultural loan account in 3rd opposite party bank. The loan account bears No.447106040006054 for Rs.20,00,000/-.
Being so due to adverse weather conditions and unforeseen mishaps the yield and proceeds from her agriculture went in tremendous loss. The price of agriculture products such as coconut, arecanut etc. are also slashed heavily. This has resulted in heavy loss to her agriculture. So the complainant could not repay the agricultural loan taken by her. The loan remained as not promptly paid with principal and interest from 2007 onwards. At that time the Govt.of India has formulated a scheme known as Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme 2008-2009.
As the complainant has bonafidely believed that she is also eligible for getting the benefit of the said scheme she has also applied for getting the benefit of it. The complainant is entitled to get benefit of the Debt Waiver Scheme in the category of large scale farmers group.
So the opposite parties forwarded the application to the Govt.of India Prime Minister’s Office. The Prime Minister’s office has sent a communication to the complainant through Regd.Letter. The communication referred above from the Prime Minister’s office is dated as June 10, 2008. In that letter the Prime Minister’s office has categorically stated and declared that the complainant is legally entitled to get all the benefits of the said scheme. The Prime Minister’s office has even expressed their gladness to extent the benefit of the scheme to the complainant. Later, as the complainant is a large scale farmer, the benefit of the Debt Waiver Scheme is attached with some obligation, which are strictly to be complied by the complainant. The conditions were that the complainant was required to pay an amount of Rs.4,61,000/- in three installments.
The said communication was issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant and the complainant has strictly complied the conditions ordered by the bank. The 3rd opposite party bank have then credited an amount of Rs.2,45,598/- in the category of the benefit of the Debt Waiver Scheme. The 3rd opposite party has deposited that amount on 25/6/2010 as in the caption of “ADWRS share large farmers”.
But to the astonishment to the complainant, 3rd opposite party then on 4/4/2013 had sent a communication through registered letter stating that the auditors found that your account is not eligible for the relief under the ADWRS 2008 and consequently they were compelled to reverse the said amount back to the Govt. on this day.
Soon after the receipt of the letter the complainant had sent a legal notice through her counsel. In that notice the complainant has asked and demanded the 3rd opposite party bank to restore and re-credit the amount of Rs.2,62,354/- back to the complainant’s account within 10 days from the date of receipt of this notice. 3rd opposite party had sent a reply notice through Advocate N.Jayadevan on 5/5/2013. In the reply notice the 3rd opposite party bank has not only justified their illegal action, but also has even dared to threaten the complainant. The threatening tone of their lawyer would also amounts to mental agony.
The complainant respectfully submits that the reversing and withdrawing of the amount of Rs.2,62,354/- by the 3rd opposite party bank without any authority, permission and consent, either express or implied would amount to deficiency of service as defined in Sec.2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act. Besides that the act of the opposite parties 1 to 3 would also amount to the violation of the provisions of Banking Regulation Act And Bankers Code Of Conduct.
Unanimous and unjustifiable withdrawal without even affording an opportunity to hear the complainant is a glaring malpractice, deficiency of service and negligence of the bank.
Opposite parties 1 to 3 are the same corporate entities and all of them are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Complainant is not seeking any relief against the opposite parties 4 and 5, but they are impleaded in the capacity of necessary parties. Without impleading them, the case would be had for the legal impediment of “non joinder of necessary parties.
Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties 1 to 3 to redeposit an amount of Rs.2,62,354/- along with 12% interest from 4/4/2013 or from the date of reversal and debiting the amount from the complainant’s loan account and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards mental agony suffered by her due to the ultra vires and impermissible act and unfair trade practice and cost of proceedings.
Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties. In spite of the receipt of notices 4th and 5th opposite parties remained absent. Hence set them exparte. Opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed version contending the following:
Opposite parties 1 to 3 contended that the loan availed by the complainant is an agricultural loan for the purchase of 8.16 Acres of Agricultural land. The loan account No.447106040006054 stated in the complaint for Rs.20,00,000/- is availed for the purchase of landed property. The loan availed is for the purchase of land. The loan papers and other documents executed by the complainant will disclose those facts.
These opposite parties admitted that the bank have forwarded the application of the complainant to get the benefit of the Debt Waiver Scheme for the farmers and complainant was required to pay Rs.4,61,000/- in three installments. These opposite parties in fact helped the complainant to get the benefits of the Debt Waiver Scheme and also credited an amount of Rs.2,45,598/- in this category. The agricultural debt relief scheme is a scheme formulated by the Govt.of India to help the farmers who have taken loan from various agencies to raise crops or to do other agricultural activities and the fund for the scheme was allotted by the Central Govt. The bank has very limited role to play in this scheme of things. The bank was under the bonafide belief that if the complainant get benefit under this scheme the bank would not stand in the way and with this idea rendered all sorts of help to the complainant.
However, when the auditors found out that the complainant’s loan account is not eligible to get the benefit of the scheme due to the guidelines specified in ADWRS Scheme, the bank had no other options but to restore and re-credit the amount of Rs.2,62,354/- to the complainant’s account. As a matter of fact the complainant has availed the loan for the purchase of landed property and not for any raising of crops or agricultural purposes.
The lawyer notice issued by the complainant was properly replied by the bank. The auditors of the bank identified the mistake done by the branch (purpose of which they were sent) and reported to the higher authorities through MOC (Memorandum of changes). The complainant is not legally entitled to get any reliefs from the opposite parties 1 to 3 on any account. There is absolutely no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties. The complainant is not eligible under the ADWRS scheme and the bank re-credited the benefit obviously to do justice to the institution and public fund. The complaint is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as claimed. Hence complaint is to be dismissed.
Complainant and opposite parties filed their respective chief affidavit. Ext A1 to A7 marked from the side of complainant. Ext B1 and B2 marked from the side of opposite parties. Power of Attorney of complainant was cross examined as PW1 and 3rd opposite party was cross examined as DW1.
The following issues are considered
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2.If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1&2
Complainant submitted that she had availed loan from the 2nd opposite party for the purpose of agriculture. Perusal of Ext.A1 series reveals that complainant had availed loan having No TLA04-A/C No.447106040006054 MT AGRI-TL-HARVEST for Rs 20,00,000 in the year 2003. Complainant further submitted that from 2007 she could not repay the loan properly. The opposite parties 1 to 3 required to pay Rs.4,61,000/- in three installments. The complainant deposited the amount as per their request and then they had credited an amount of Rs.2,45,598/- in Debt Waiver Scheme category in the account of the complainant. All these aspects are admitted by the opposite parties.
Opposite parties 1 to 3 contended that the complainant had taken the loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for the purchase of the land. In order to prove that contention they did not produce loan papers and other documents executed by the complainant. Opposite parties 1 to 3 further contended that when the auditors found out the complainant’s loan account was not eligible to get the benefit of the scheme due to the guidelines specified in ADWRS Scheme, the bank had no other options but to restore and re-credit the amount of Rs.2,62,354/- to the complainant’s account. Opposite parties did not produce the copy of guidelines specified in ADWRS Scheme to establish their contentions. Perusal of Ext B1 document reveals that as per branch, loan was granted for growing of rubber trees and as per auditor’s report the purpose of the loan was for the purchase of land. Opposite parties did not adduce any document to show that on what basis the auditors of the bank came to such a conclusion. They did not give any explanation either in the version or in their affidavit. The burden to prove that the complainant had availed loan for the purpose of purchasing land is on opposite parties 1 to 3. They did not do so. Complainant proved their case by adducing documentary and oral evidence. From the available evidence we came to the conclusion that complainant had availed agriculture loan from the 3rd opposite party bank. Hence complainant is eligible for the benefit under the ADWRS scheme 2008 which was formulated by the Govt. of India. Under the above circumstances we are of the view that opposite parties 1 to 3 committed deficiency in service in re-crediting the amount of Rs.2,45,598/- to complainant’s account. More over opposite parties 1 to 3 reversed the entry dated 25-6-2010 only on 4-4-2013 i.e, after 33 months. These acts of opposite parties 1 to 3 amount to gross negligence and deficiency in service.
In the above circumstances, we allow the complaint. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,45,598/- (Rupees Two lakhs forty five thousand five hundred and ninety eight only) towards the amount re-credited by the opposite parties, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant. As the complainant did not seek any relief from the opposite parties 4 & 5, they are exonerated from the liability. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of January 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 series – Statement of accounts of the complainant issued by 3rd opposite party
bank
Ext.A2 – Requisition letter issued by the branch manager of the 3rd opposite party
regarding the remittance of Agrl.debt relief scheme
Ext.A3 – Copy of the letter issued by the office of the Prime Minister, Govt.of India
regarding the entitlement of Agrl.Debt relief to the complainant. (Subject
to proof)
Ext.A4 – Declaration letter issued by the branch manager of the 3rd opposite party bank
regarding the schedule of payments to be effected by the complainant for
availing the benefit of Agrl.Debt.Waiver Scheme
Ext.A5 – Intimation letter issued by the 3rd opposite party stating that the
complainant is not eligible for not availing the benefit under Agrl.Debt
waiver scheme and withdrawal of amount by the bank from the complainant’s
account.
Ext.A6series – Copy of the lawyer notice issued by the complainant counsel to the
third opposite party with postal receipt and ack.card. (Subject to proof)
Ext.A7 – Reply notice issued by Advocate N.Jayadevan for and on behalf of the 3rd
opposite party. (Subject to proof)
Cross examination of complainant
PW1 - Moidu
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Certified copy of Memorandum of changes for audit of Relief ADWRS 2008 in
respect of accounts where excess claim has been made
Ext.B2 – Certified copy of sanction advice issued by Union Bank of India, Regional
office, Ernakulam in respect of the loan availed by the complainant
Cross examination on the side of opposite parties
DW1 – Sreedhar.J
Cost
Rs.2,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
