State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
C.D. Nanaiah vs The Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank on 22 August, 2011
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 22nd OF AUGUST 2011
PRESENT
HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT
SRI. A.M. BENNUR : MEMBER
SMT. RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER
Appeal
No.2385/2011
1. C.D. Nanaiah
S/o. Devaiah
2. Ravindra
S/o. C.D.
Nanaiah
Both are
residing at Kanor
Village
Virajpet Taluk,
Kodagu Dist.
(By Shri/Smt H.B.
Uday Kumar )
1. The Branch
Manager, Vijaya Bank
Kanor, Virajpet
taluk
Kodagu District.
.Appellant
Complainant before the DF
-Versus-
.Respondent
Opposite Parties before the DF
O R D E R
SRI. A.M. BENNUR, MEMBER This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant in Complaint No. 29/2011 on the file of DF, Madikeri being aggrieved with the order dated 12-07-2011.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2. Complainant availed crop loan under Account No. ACC 50/99 to the limit of Rs. 75,000/- and secured loan No. 25/99 to the extent at Rs. 1,61,000/-. Out of the said loan they purchased Maruti Omni for agricultural operation. OP is expected to give the relief under Debt Relief Package of 2010 to the complainant but failed to do so. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant went in vain. Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service.
3. On appearance, OP has contended that, Maruti Omni vehicle is purchased for personal use not for the agricultural purpose. Hence, complainants are not entitled for the relief under the Debt Relief Package. The loan obtained by the complainant is excluded in the list of loans available for the benefit of Debt Relief Package. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
Accordingly, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Then the litigating parties lead their evidence and after hearing the arguments, the DF was pleased to dismiss the said complaint vide order dated 12-07-2011. Being aggrieved by the same, now the complainants have come up with this appeal on the following grounds:
That he DF has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective manner. The reasons assigned, conclusion arrived at, inferences drawn, findings recorded are opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The DF has misinterpreted the Debt Relief Package of 2010. Though complainants are able to establish that they are entitled to the benefit under Debt Relief Package, it is totally ignored by the DF. If the said order is not aside, it is the appellants/complainants who will be put to greater hardship and prejudice. Among these grounds, appellants prayed for allowing the appeal.
5. Heard the arguments on admission.
6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration at this stage are as under:
1.
Whether the appellants have made out substantial grounds and reasons so as to admit this appeal and cause notice to the respondent?
2. To what order?
7. We have gone through the impugned order under appeal, grounds urged in the appeal memo and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the foregoing paragraphs, our findings on Point No.1 is in negative and Point No.2 as per final order.
REASONS
8. It is not at dispute that, the complainant availed crop loan as well as secured loan from OP and it is also not at dispute that, complainant purchased Maruti Omni. It is the say of the complainant that, said Maruti Omni vehicle has been purchased for agricultural operation. We dont believe that the said Maruti Omni can be used for agricultural operation. The DF has considered each and every aspect of the matter and rightly come to the conclusion that, the complainants loan is not covered under the Debt Relief Package 2010, that conclusion appears to be judicious and proper. The said vehicle is purchased for personal use and not for agricultural purpose. Clause 4 of the Debt Relief Package 2010 excludes such loan from the scheme.
9. For the above said reasons, we find there is a justification in the finding of the DF in dismissing the complaint. On the other hand, the appellants have failed to show before this Commission that the impugned order is erroneous, unjust and improper and that it suffers from legal infirmity, unsustainable in law. There is no proof that, the said order suffers from error apparent on the face of record requiring our interference.
10. We dont find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Appellants have failed to make out substantial grounds and reasons so as to admit this appeal and cause notice to the respondent. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Rhr**