State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager,Parbhani District Central ... vs Sow. Indumati W/O. Jairam ... on 31 March, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Date of filing : 08.02.2006 Date of Order :31.03.2010 FIRST APPEAL NO. 338 OF 2006 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 122 OF 2005 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: PARBHANI & HINGOLI 1. The Manager, Parbhani District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Parbhani, Branch Peth- Babulgaon Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani, Through its authorized person 2. Taluka Inspector Parbhani D.C.C. Bank Branch, Pathri Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani. 3. The Inspector, Parbhani District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Parbhani, Branch Peth- Babulgaon Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani, Appellants VERSUS Sow. Indumati w/o. Jairam Vighane R/o. Peth Babulgaon, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani Respondent Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Judicial Member. Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member. Present: Adv. Shri. Amit Ghute, for appellant. Adv. Shri. A.S. Bangar,for respondent. :: ORAL ORDER :
:
Per Shri S. G. Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member
1. The present appeal is filed by the original opponents Parbhani District Central Co-operative Bank Limited against the judgment and order dated18.01.2006 in complaint case No.122/2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Parbhani & Hingoli.
2. The respondent/complainants case before the Forum is that, in the year 2004-2005 she cultivated cotton in her land. She sold the cotton under the Government Scheme of Kapus Ekadhikar Yojna and received the cheque of Rs.
30,657/- dated 04.02.2005 and Rs.18,799/- dated 03.03.2005. It is contended that, complainant had presented both the cheques in the appellant No.1 Bank but, the appellant No.1 refused to pay the amount. The amount was not paid on the ground that, one Malikarjun Appa Naikwade had raised the loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the Bank in question and he had created the charge of the loan on the land Gut No.54 of village Babhalgaon, Tq. Pathri from which some part of land has been produced by the present complainant and thus, she approached the Forum.
3. The present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim contending that, the Malikarjun Appa Naikwade had raised the loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the society. Said Malikarjun Appa Naikwade had created charge on the land bearing Gut No.54 of village Babhalgaon. The loan was not repaid by Malikarjun Naikwade, the present appellant purchased the two acres of land from the land in question. The cotton crop has been sold by the complainant from the said land and thus, the respondent refused to make the payment.
4. Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay the cheque amount with the interest @ 6% p.a. from 03.03.2005.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order D.C.C. Bank came in appeal.
6. Notices were issued to the appellant as well as the respondent. Learned counsel Shri. Amit Ghute, appeared for the appellant and Shri. A. S. Bangar, appeared for the respondent. We heard both the counsels at sufficient length. We perused the papers. There is no dispute that, the complainant did not raise the loan from appellant. It is the contention of the appellant that one Malikarjun Appa Naikwade raised the loan of Rs. 50,000/- which he did not repay. It is also their contention that, the said Malikarjun Appa Naikwade had created the charge on the land Gut No.54 of village Babhalgaon. There is also no dispute that, the two acres of the land of Gut No.54 had been purchased by the complainant under registered sale deed. The land Gut No.54 is admeasuring 9 Hector 38 R, out of which only 80 R had been purchased by the complainant. We have mentioned that the complainant is not the borrower of the Bank in question. Certainly, the appellant could take the action against the Malikarjun Appa Naikwade for the land Gut No.54 which is in his possession on which the charge is created. The Forum below has considered all these aspects and rightly allowed the complaint. We are not inclined to interfere the order passed by the Forum. Appeal is dismissed.
(Mrs. Uma S. Bora) (S. G. Deshmukh) Member Presiding Judicial Member Kalyankar