Date of Filing : 17.01.2012
Date of Order : 08.05.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 8th MAY 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
CC No. 04 / 2012
Sri. Lakshmipathi.H.V.
S/o. Late Venkatashamappa,
Hussainpura Village,
Thondebhavi Hobli,
Gowribidanur Taluk.
(By Sri. P.M. Shankar Prasad, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
The Manager,
Canara Bank,
Gowribidanur Branch,
Gowribidanur Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District.
(By Sri. G. Mallikarjuna, Adv.) …… Opposite Party
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complaint u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to OP to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- are necessary:-
Complainant had obtained loan for purchase of Tractor and also for crop loan from the OP and he was repaying it regularly. To grow planten in his land, as per the suggestion of the OP, to obtain loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, Complainant had executed registered mortgage deed of his property on 17.02.2010 in favour of the OP. Even then, OP stopped release of the amount. Complainant had incurred initial expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- and grown planten in his land. For the required manure / medicines OP has agreed to grant loan, but that has not been released. There is loss of Rs.4,00,000/-. Hence the Complaint.
2. In brief version of OP2 are:-
The registered mortgage deed dtd. 17.10.2010 is not in the knowledge of the OP. After complying the procedures, then alone the mortgage documents will be taken. But, no such thing has been done in this case. Complainant had not grown Banana in any of his lands in 2010 or earlier or subsequently and no loss has been caused to the Complainant. Complainant had obtained Tractor loan, but he has not paid it back and he is a defaulter. OP has not agreed to grant loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant. The alleged mortgage deed is a concocted one.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, OP had filed affidavit and documents. Complainant had filed Memo stating that the Complaint & documents be read as his evidence. Arguments were heard.
4. Point that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
5. Our answers for the above points are as under:
(A) Negative
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Complaint is summarized supra and the same be read herein again. Complaint is as bald as it could be. It does not contain any particulars i.e., When the Complainant had made Application for loan? Whether it was sanctioned? When it was sanctioned? Who sanctioned it? For what amount it has been sanctioned? What are the documents that he has given to the OP? None of these things are stated either in the Complaint or in the affidavit. It is as bald as it could be.
7. If any loan has to be sanctioned that too to an Agriculturist, Application has to be made, concerned Bank has to send its Field Officer to verify property & crop grown therein, prepare mahazar and submit to the authorities, then only they have to sanction the loan. Later certain documents have to be executed by the Complainant in favour of the OP and certain securities have to be taken and then it has to be released. But, such things are not there in this case.
8. In any event, here the Complainant has not purchased any service from the OP for any consideration. Complainant is not a consumer. It is the Complainant who wants loan from the OP and Complainant has not paid anything to the OP. Hence, he cannot be a consumer.
9. Further, in case between Kamadhenu Seva Sangh v/s. Khadi & Village Industries Commission reported in I (2011) CPJ 345, it has been rules thus:
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(e), 15 – Banking and Financial Institutions Services – Loan granted – Working capital not released – Consumer dispute – Entire project became standstill – Alleged deficiency in service – OP is a financial institution and complainant borrower, loan amount is to be released only in case of execution of equitable mortgage – Lender has every right to withhold amount unless conditions fulfilled – Absence of ‘hiring of any service’ – Not a consumer dispute”
This is in all force applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. That is to say, if the loan is not released, it cannot be a consumer dispute and the lender has every right to withhold the amount unless conditions are fulfilled. There is no hiring of any service.
10. If the loan is not sanctioned or if loan is not disbursed, it will not amount to deficiency in service as held in Niwas Spinning Mills Ltd. v/s. Bank of India, III (2003) CPJ 190 (NC) and also of this Forum in case between Sidheshwara Prasad v/s. SBI in CC No. 1461/2011 dtd. 03.09.2011.
11. Regarding sanction of loan, OP has to verify the loan application & documents, take opinion of Advocate, Auditor, Water experts, Agricultural Officers, Horticulture Authorities and follow the guidelines of RBI. But, no such thing is pleaded or established.
12. Even otherwise, the entire contention of the Complainant is that he has executed a mortgage of deed of his property and OP has not released the money. The mortgage deed that has been produced by the
Complainant does not say that this has been accepted by the OP at any point of time. At the time of registration of the documents, OP was not there nor obtained his LTM / signature nor his photo were taken by the registering authorities. On certain blank paper, certain signature & seal is there, taking advantage of that, Complainant has cooked up these documents as rightly contended. Even in the absence of the OP at the time of registration of the documents, permission from the concerned should have been obtained by the Complainant and the OP and that should have been produced before the Forum and before the registering authorities by the Complainant, that is not there. That means, this document is self styled document created for the purpose of harassing the OP as rightly contended.
13. Even otherwise, Complainant had produced Receipt dtd. 13.01.2010 stating that he had purchased 6000 planten stems from Siddappa and that was planted in his land on 15.01.2010. Further, he has purchased certain stems from Sri Maruthi Agencies on 02.01.2010, that means earlier to 17.02.1010 he has purchased these things and he had planted according to the Complainant. If it were to be so, why he require Rs.1,00,000/- loan for medicines and for manure. It is impossible to conceive.
14. Even otherwise, it is seen from the RTC of his land for the year 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 it is dry land and nothing is grown and no water source is available in the said land. Hence contention of the Complainant that to raise planten in his land he has planted Banana plants in his land is nothing but untrue allegations taken by the Complainant. Without water source, nobody can raise Banana crop. Here Phahani shows it is only dry land and nothing else is there and no crop is grown at any point of time either on the date of the alleged mortgage deed or subsequently or earlier thereto. That means, mortgage deed is a concocted one as rightly contended.
15. OP has contended that Complainant has not paid back the Tractor loan and when insisted Complainant got these documents prepared and filed this case. There is nothing to disbelieve the said allegations and contentions and there is no ample force in that.
16. Further, even in the alleged mortgage deed, it is not stated that Rs.1,00,000/- has been sanctioned as crop loan or as the case may be to grow Banana plants in his land loan it has been sanctioned or any application for loan has been made by the Complainant and on a particular date loan has been sanctioned and in that regard this document has been taken by the OP, no such things are there. It is very blank mortgage deed.
17. What this mortgage deed says, to sanction loan on Kissan Credit Card Scheme, upto Rs.1,00,000/- this mortgage has been executed. There is no such Kissan Credit Card Scheme that is alleged in the Complaint. No such application is there. It means it is concocted document. That means, Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, even on merits.
18. Under these circumstances, we hold the point accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
3. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 8th of May 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
