( Passed on dated 30^th  December, 2015 )

Per Shri Atul D. Alsi – Hon’ble President.

              The complainant is an agriculturist and having agricultural land at village Nonitola, Post Soni, Tah. Goregaon, Dist. Gondia.  The complainant had applied to opposite party No.1 for agricultural loan in order to develop banana plantation in his agricultural land.   As per letter dated 28/02/2012 issued by opposite party No.1, the loan of Rs.4,00,000/- had sanctioned by the bank in favour of complainant.  The Opposite party No.1 had only deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in account of complainant and informed complainant that Rs.2,50,000/- had been disbursed through demand draft to opposite party No.2, Maharashtra Irrigation Services, Gondia, for supplying equipment and banana plants etc. and out of remaining amount Rs.1,00,000/- had been disbursed to complainant  and Rs.50,000/- deposited towards fixed deposit.

2.            The complainant had disbursed the above amount Rs.2,50,000/- to  opposite party No. 1 i.e. Maharashtra Irrigation Services, Gondia without obtaining consent. But in spite of lapse of one year period, opposite party no.1 Maharashtra Irrigation Services, Gondia had neither provide any equipment nor banana plants in spite of repeated demand from complainant nor refund the amount.  Due to non supply of equipment and banana plants the complainant unable to take the crop and there by suffer loss of Rs.2,00,000/-

3.            The complainant prayed to declare that the opponent No.1 & 2 had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

4.            After receiving the notice issued by this Forum, the O. P. No.1 & 2 are appeared before forum through their counsel and filed their written statement.

5.            In the reply, O. P. No. 1  submitted that, as per letter dated 28/02/2012 loan of Rs.4,00,000/- was sanctioned by this O.P. jointly to the complainant along with one Smt. Dewangana w/o.Chhaganlal Rahangadale and not to the complainant alone as alleged.   It is specifically submitted that as per letter of request/instructions dated 28/04/2012 signed by the complainant, an amount of Rs.2,44,000/- had been paid to the O..No.2 on 19/04/2012.  He further specifically submitted that the said amount of Rs.2,44,000/- had been paid to the O.P.No.2 for the purpose of bore-well and pump-set.    It is true that the complainant had issued notice dated 31/01/2013 to the O. P.. 

6.            In the specific pleading the O.P.No1 had submitted that, as already stated herein above, the subject loan has been sanctioned and disbursed for the purpose of land development bore-well and pump set as per request and instructions of the complainant and there is no deficiency whatsoever on the part of  O.P.No.1 in the matter.  He further submitted that, the O.P.No.1 being a bank /financial institution is not supposed to monitor or supervise the activities of the complainant vis-à-vis the dealer or supplier i.e. the O.P.No.2 inf this matter because the role of the bank is limited to the extent of advancing finance only.  At this juncture it is pertinent to state here that  the name of this O. P. bank has been changes from “Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank”, to “Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank” as per Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, Notification F.No. 7/9/2011-RRB (Maharashtra) dated 28/02/2013 under the provisions of Section 23-A of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976.  So all the liabilities and assets of the erstwhile bank have been taken over by the new bank.

7.            In the special pleading of his reply the O. P. No. 2 submitted that, M/s. Jain Irrigation System Ltd. Co., Jalgaon is a manufacturer co. manufacturing the material of drip irrigation for agricultural purpose and the opponent No.2 is the authorized dealer in Gondia District.  After taking the loan from the bank, the complainant approached in the office of opponent No.2 and requested to install the drip irrigation system in his field,.    The opponent No.2 inspected the agricultural land of the complainant and make a quotation of drip irrigation equipment of Rs.2,50,923.75/-  including the transportation, installation and document charges.   Thereafter, on 21/04/2012, the opponent No.2 installed the equipment of drip irrigation in the land of complainant and after satisfaction; the complainant had also issued the receipt to that effect on the same day.  It is pertinent to state that the total cost of the equipment of drip irrigation was Rs.2,38,975/-  but in the mean time, the complainant had demand amount of Rs.90,000/- out of Rs.2,50,000/- with promise to return the same within one month.    In this regard, the opponent has given the said amount of Rs.90,000/- through cheque I.D. B.I./Axis Bank.  But the complainant did not return to the opponent till today.  Thus, Rs.78,975/- is still outstanding against him.  As such, there is no any unfair practice or deficiency in service have been arose on the part of O.P.No.2.  There is neither any prima facie case has made out nor did balance of convenience lies in favour of complainant.  The complainant has filed this false complaint just to harass the opponent.

8.            The complainant has filed sanction letter, dated 28/02/2012  at page no. 11, Copy of 7/12 extract at page no.12, Copy of notice dated 31/01/2013 at page no. 13, Copy of postal receipt  at page no.16. Copy of postal acknowledgement at page No.17, Copy of reply by bank at page no. 18 on record.

9.            The counsel for complainant Mr. S. B. Rajankar argued that, the O. P. No. 1 sanctioned loan of Rs.4,00,000/- and paid Rs.2,50,000/- directly to O. P. No. 2 and Rs.50,000/- kept in F. D. R. with bank i.e. O. P. No. 1.  The loan was sanctioned for plantation and banana tree & equipment and bore well @ 16% rate of interest per annum for the repayment in 5 years.  There is no compliance report filed by O. P. No. 2.  The O. P. No. 2 did not develop the land in spite of amount was received for development of field.  The work completion certificates are not valid.  The signature of complainant was taken prior to sanction of loan amount.  The amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was transferred without giving intimation to the O. P. No. 2.  The opposite parties are responsible for payment of Rs.2,50,000/- along with compensation.

10.                   The counsel for O. P. No.1 Wainganga Gramin Bank Adv. Mr. N. S. Popat argued that, the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- was sanctioned as per loan application which is filed on doc. no. 1 and as per authorization of complainant loan is transferred to O. P. No. 2.  There is private contract between complainant and O. P. No. 2 to develop the field.  The O. P. No. 1 is not concern and party for the development agreement.  The O. P. No. 1 has right to recover loan amount as per loan agreement.  Hence there is no deficiency on the part of O. P. No. 1.   Hence case may be dismissed against opposite party no. 1.

11.                   The counsel for O.P. No. 2 Maharashtra Irrigation Service Ltd. Adv. Mr. S. B. Dahare argued that the O. P. No. 2 had completed the work and installed the equipment as per requirements of complainant.  The complainant has issued satisfaction slip for the same.  There is no complaint of cheating and non-compliance of work by complainant.  The document signed by the complainant for completion of work satisfactorily is binding on complainant.  Hence case may be dismissed against O. P. No. 2.                                 

12.                   As per petition and arguments and documents filed on record following points came for consideration:-

REASONING & FINDINGS

13.                    The O. P. No. 1 Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank has sanctioned loan of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lac only) to complainant and Smt. Dewangana Chhaganlal Rahangdale jointly as per loan sanctioned letter dated 28/02/2012 filed on page No. 11 and as per admission of O.P. No. 1 in its reply.  The loan was sanctioned for land development and bore well and pump set.  The 7/12 extract filed on page No.12 described that the complainant and Dewangana Rahangadale and Isabai Baghele are co-owners of filed survey No.1221/1 at Mauze-Nonitola, Tal.Goregaon, Dist. Gondia.  The said field has been kept mortgage for sactioned of loan of Rs.4,00,000/- as per mutation entry of mortgage on 7/12 extract for survey No. 1221/1.

14.                   Out of Rs.4,00,000/- loan sanctioned amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was directly transferred to O.P.No.2 by O.P.No.1 as per letter of consent issued by complainant which is filed by O.P.No.2  Maharashtra Irrigation Services, Gondia which is subsidiary company of Jain Irrigation Ltd., Jalgaon to carry out work  for the purposes of loan as per document filed on page no.42.  The O.P.No.1 disbursed Rs.1,00,000/- to complainant and Rs.50,000/- deposited in fixed deposit in the name of complainant as per FDR receipt No. 038166, dated 18/04/2012 for 36 months @ interest 9.4% p.a..

15.                   The complainant issued notice on dated 31/01/2013 for non-supply of trees and equipment with out not development of land and thereby suffered a loss of Rs.2 lacks.   The complainant has filed “Commissioner Report” executed on 24/12/2014 by Govt. Agricultural officer, Salekasa and Tasgaon , Dist. Gondia along with  witness Agricultural Officer of Goregaon and Asstt. Supervisor of Agriculture describing that there is bore well of 2 H.P. with submersible motor pump but there is no drip irrigation and other facility were available for irrigation.  The Commissioner are agricultural expert and as per commissioner’s report there were no sign of performance of work drip irrigation.  The Commissioner are government officers and there report can be accepted as independent evidence for non performance of work by O.P.No.2.   The O. P. No. 2 has not performed  its job even after receipt  of loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on behalf of complainant and as per reply of O.P.No.2 the expenses for drip irrigation was required Rs.2,38,975/-.  The defense of O.P.No.2 that the drip irrigation system was installed and the complainant issued the acknowledgement that the work was satisfactory can’t be accepted because the agreement and receipt filed on record by O.P. are not proved by O.P.No.2 by proper evidence and on affidavit of O.P.No.2 hence the contention of O.P.No.2 that the drip irrigation system installed as per requirement of complainant can’t be accepted.  Hence, O.P.No.2 is responsible for non-performance its job as per agreement of land development between complainant and O.P.No.2.  The O. P. No. 1 was not party for the agreement of land development hence O. P. No. 1 is exempted from any liability.  The O. P. No. 2 is liable to refund the amount of loan for non-performance of its job as per agreement directly to O.P.No.1 amount to Rs.2,38,975/-  @9% interest P.A. from the date of admission of case i.e. 30/03/2013 till realization.                       

Hence, the following order:-

-: ORDER :-

1.            The complaint is partly allowed. 

2.            The O.P.No.2 is directed to pay Rs. 2,38,975/- @9% interest P.A. from the date of admission of case i.e. 30/03/2013 till its realization directly to the loan account of O.P.No.1.

3.            The O.P.No.2 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental torture and Rs.5,000/- for case of litigation to the complainant.

4.            No order passed against O.P.No.1.

5.            The O.P.No.2 is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.