Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/95

Gurdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In person

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 95 of 12.08.2014

Date of decision                   : 27.02.2015

 

         

Gurdeep Singh s/o Sh. Dalbar Singh, resident of village Rasulpur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, Distt. Rupnagar.

                                                                             .....Complainant

 

                                                Vs.

 

1. Manager, UCO Bank, Branch Morinda.

2. Managing Director, UCO Bank, Head Office, New Delhi.

 

                                                                             ….Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer

                             Protection Act, 1986

 

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SHRI V.K. KHANNA, MEMBER

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

                             Sh. Ja          rnail Singh Advocate, counsel for the

                             complainant

Sh. Mandeep Moudgil Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Parties

 

 

ORDER

          MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

          Sh. Gurdeep Singh, has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs against O.P. No.1:-

i)       To make payment of the balance loan amount of

          Rs.11,00,000/-,

ii)      To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had applied for loan for the agriculture purposes with the O.P. No. 1, who sanctioned the same for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and advised him to mortgage his 21 kanal 2 marlas land with the said bank, so that payment could be released to him. Accordingly, he mortgaged his 21 kanal 2 marlas land with the O.P. No. 1 on 9.6.2014. After 15 days, the O.P. No. 1 made payment of Rs.4,00,000/- to him and told him that after 2-3 days, payment of the remaining loan amount would be made. As per said assurance of the O.P. No. 1, he withdrew the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, and awaited for the payment of remaining amount of Rs.11,00,000/-, but inspite of lapse of one week’s period, the O.P. No. 1 did not transfer the said amount of Rs.11,00,000/-. Then, he again approached the O.P. No. 1 and requested him to release the payment of remaining loan amount as he was to sow the crop of rice and was in need of money for the purpose of seed, pesticides, Khad etc., but the O.P. No. 1 did not make payment of remaining loan amount and put off the matter on one pretext or the other, due to which he could not sow the rice crop and suffered a huge loss, on account of sole negligence on the part of O.P. No.1. He again approached the O.P. No.1 and requested for release of the said loan amount of Rs.11,00,000/-, but he was surprised to know when the O.P. No. 1 told him that the sanctioned loan amount was Rs.13,00,000/- and not Rs.15,00,000/-, whereas as per mortgage deed, an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was sanctioned towards loan and entry to that effect has also been incorporated in Jamabandi. On 24.7.2014, the O.P. No. 1 had refused to make payment of the balance loan amount of Rs.11,00,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On being put to notice, the O.Ps. filed written statement taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that it does not lie; that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain & try the same; that the complainant is not ‘consumer’ of the O.Ps. and has no locus standi and no cause of action to file the instant complaint; that there has no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts, as such, he is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy special costs for dragging the O.Ps. into unnecessary/uncalled for litigation. On merits, it is stated that at the request of the complainant, Kissan Credit Limit facility was sanctioned by the O.Ps. on 19.6.2014 in the joint names of the complainant and Smt. Gurjit Kaur, who had moved an application for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- only. Under the KCC Scheme of the bank short term production finance is provided to the farmers and revolving cash credit limit is fixed keeping in view the cropping pattern of the concerned area and the scale of finance provided by the State level Bankers Committee. In the case of the complainant, it was a kharif season and the first disbursement of Rs.4,00,000/- was allowed to him for sowing the rice & vegetable crops etc. out of the total limit of Rs.4,66,000/-, fixed for kharif season. As the O.P. bank had disbursed Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant , the balance amount was to be disbursed after verifying the satisfactory use of the amount already disbursed to him. He did not sow the proposed crops and did not submit the requisite bills, as proof of utilization of the amount disbursed to him for purchasing the seeds, pesticides or manure, therefore, the remaining amount, out of the amount fixed for kharif season, was not released to him. It is further stated that releasing of public money, without proper use of the same, is against the guidelines of the scheme. The limit for Rabi season for the concerned area was assessed at Rs.4,54,000/-, which was to be released at the time of cultivation of the Rabi crop. At the end of the Kharif season, the borrower has to adjust the existing limit already availed by him for Kharif season by sale proceeds of the crop. Keeping in view the cropping pattern of the farmers in the area and the assessed limit for the respective seasons, as per the scale of finance, the entire limit assessed for the whole of the year and the complete cropping cycle cannot be released in one season to the borrower/farmer. In the case of the complainant, he himself admits that he had not sown the Kharif crop, as such, he has mis-utilized the public money. So far as the question of mortgaging the land for Rs.15 lacs is concerned, it is submitted that after the harvest of the Kharif crop, the complainant was intended to avail more loan of Rs.2 lacs for establishing a dairy unit, therefore, at his request, the land was mortgaged for the entire amount required by him. The O.P. is a public sector Government Bank and its approach towards the customers is always sympathetic and helpful. It is the complainant, who has cheated the bank by mis-utilizing the funds. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit & photocopies of documents Ex. C1 to C9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. tendered affidavit of  Ms. Geeta Chaurasia, Manager Ex. OP-1 & photocopies of documents Ex. OP-2 to Ex. OP-8 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had applied for grant of loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, for which he had mortgaged his land measuring 21 kanal 2 marlas with the O.Ps. However, the O.Ps. sanctioned the loan only to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/- and out of the said amount, only an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was disbursed to him, which tantamount to deficiency in service on their part. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. vehemently argued that the complainant alongwith Smt. Gurjit Kaur submitted an application dated 31.5.2015 (Ex.OP-2) for grant of Agricultural Credit Short Term/Term Loan for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-, which was sanctioned by the O.Ps. vide sanction letter dated 20.6.2014 (Ex.OP-7), subject to fulfillment of the terms & conditions (Standard & special covenants) as contained in Annexure-1).  In the case of the complainant, the first disbursement of Rs.4,00,000/- was allowed to him out of the total limit of Rs.4,66,000/-, fixed for kharif season, for sowing the rice & vegetable crops etc., which is evident from the page No.4 of the Approval for Disbursement (Ex. OP-3). The balance amount was to be disbursed to the borrower(s), after verifying the satisfactory use of the amount already disbursed to the borrower(s). The complainant himself has admitted the factum of now-sowing of any Kharif crop in the complaint itself. Consequently, the complainant neither submitted the requisite bills as proof of utilization of amount for purchasing the seeds, pesticides or manure, nor had sown the proposed crops, therefore, he himself had breached the condition of the said agreement, and for that reason, the remaining amount, was not released to him.

 

7.                From the mortgaged deed, Ex. C4, it is apparent that the complainant had mortgaged his land with the O.Ps., for sanctioning of the KCC Limit to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- However, from the perusal of application (Ex.OP-2), it is clear that the complainant alongwith other two borrowers had submitted the said application for grant of Agricultural Credit Short Term/Term Loan for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-. Accordingly, the cash credit limit to that extent was sanctioned by the O.Ps. As per terms & conditions of the said cash credit limit, the O.Ps. had disbursed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant, out of the said sanctioned limit, for sowing of Kharif crop i.e. rice & vegetables. In order to prove this fact that he had submitted the bills regarding purchase of the seeds, pesticides or manure, for the Kharif crop to the O.Ps., the complainant had placed on record the bills dated 10.6.2014, 5.7.2014, Ex.C8 & Ex.C9 respectively, but no document has been placed on record to prove that he had submitted the said bills with the O.Ps. Moreover, in the very first para of the complaint, the complainant himself has averred that he had not sown the Kharif crop. As per sanction letter (Ex.OP-7), the very purpose of the sanctioning of the KCC limit was for cultivation of crops, but in the present case, the complainant had himself admitted this fact in the complaint itself that he had not cultivated the Kharif crop for which the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was disbursed to him, therefore, he himself had breached the condition of the said KCC limit, due to which remaining amount was not disbursed to him by the O.Ps. for the Rabi season. Hence, the O.Ps. cannot be said to be deficient in rendering service. Even otherwise, the KCC limit in question was got sanctioned by Sh. Gurdeep Singh (complainant), Sh. Surjit Singh and Ms. Gurjit Kaur, as is evident from the application (Ex.OP-2) itself, therefore, the complaint should have been filed by all of the said three co-borrowers, whereas this complaint has been filed only by one of the borrowers i.e. Gurdeep Singh, without obtaining no objection from the said other borrowers. Therefore, on that score also the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint, with no order as to costs.

 

9.                The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 27.02.2015                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

(V.K. KHANNA)                    (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                    MEMBER                                MEMBER.