State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jeevrakhan Sahu vs Branch Manager on 26 July, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR(C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/12/724
Instituted on : 11.12.2012
Jeevrakhan Sahu, S/o Shri Bhaktu Sahu,
R/o : Village - Daganiya, Post - Beejabhat,
Tehsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Branch Manager,
Durg Jila Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank
Maryadit Durg,
Branch - Berla, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Bhupendra Jain, for appellant.
Shri Pramod Dubey, for respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 26/07/2013 PER: - HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER This appeal is directed against order dated 07.11.2012 of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred for short as "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.150/2012, whereby complaint of the appellant herein/complainant, alleging deficiency in service against OP/Bank on account of improper recovery of loan dues and not returning the repossessed tractor & trolley, was dismissed.
//2 //
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant had taken an agricultural loan of Rs.2,50,000/- in the year 1999 from OP/Bank for purchase of a tractor & trolley having registration no.CG-04 ZG-9690 & having Regn.No.-ZD-9691 respectively with Nagar against its total cost of Rs.3,21,000/-. Complainant has averred that he is an illiterate person and cannot understand the contents of the documents and the rules of the Bank. As per his averment, believing the version of Bank officials while granting loan, he had agreed to raise loan without the condition of penal interest and Bank officials had got blank papers signed by him. He averred to have deposited total amount Rs.7,56,444/- with OP/Bank out of which amount Rs.85,000/- deposited by him on 25.01.1999 through the dealer Mr. Amar Kumar Verma was not adjusted by it. He was intimated by OP in April 2008 that relief in interest would be provided as per 2008 scheme, so he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.04.2008 after having managed fund by selling some of his land and also by borrowing some amount from other farmers. Complainant further averred that he received an intimation from OP on 13.05.2009 stating that after adjustment of amount Rs.1,00,000/-, amount of Rs.78,586/- was still outstanding and if he could deposit the total loan dues then relief of Rs.59,515/- would be provided . He was given a manually prepared statement by OP but it was not understandable and on contacting OP, no other statement was provided. Complainant further deposited Rs.25,000/- but OP/Bank intimated him by notice dated 01.01.2010 demanding Rs.2,29,000/- and subsequently again demanded //3 // Rs.2,14,000/- by another notice dated 03.02.2010. Complainant further averred that loan dues of Rs.41,086/- had only remained to be paid. OP had unexpectedly repossessed the tractor & trolley on 23.06.2012, after having got his signatures on blank papers. OP had further given him notice dated 26.11.2012 demanding Rs.1,71,000/- and on deposit of Rs.70,000/- trolley was returned and Rs.28,914/- remained refundable to him. Complainant had sent a notice to OP through an advocate about the matter. Complainant also averred that from the period 1999 to 23.06.2011 he had deposited in all Rs.7,56,444/-, still his tractor & trolley were repossessed by OP, which amounted to unfair trade practice/ deficiency in service. Complainant prayed for seeking direction to OP to refund him Rs.28,914/- and redeliver his tractor & trolley, together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony & harassment, with also cost of proceedings Rs.12,000/-.
3. OP, while denying other averments of the complainant, averred that the complainant was provided agriculture loan of Rs.2,50,000/- on 29.01.1999 which together with interest accumulated to Rs.3,23,675/- against which he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.04.2008. He was intimated to deposit the remaining loan dues Rs.1,78,586/- in order to get relief of Rs.59,155/- but he did not comply. OP alleged that the complainant had never been regular in repayment of loan and because of such defaults the outstanding loan dues due to penal interest and 'Kalateet" interest had piled up to Rs.2,38,061/-, out of which //4 // Rs.1,62,333/- was Principal and Rs.75,728/- was interest. OP averred that notices were sent to the complainant on 26.12.2011, 31.12.2011, 31.03.2012 to clear off loan dues but despite that, due to non-payment of loan dues, his tractor & trolley were repossessed on 09.04.2012 and since Rs.1,71,000/- was outstanding as on 30.04.2012 so the tractor & trolley were to be sold for recovery of dues. OP in its additional version has averred that it is a registered body under C.G. Co-operative Societies Act, 1963 which functions with the motto of progress & development of its farmer members by advancing loan on mortgage of land and reiterated the aforesaid facts. OP averred not to have committed any deficiency in service so prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Learned District Forum after having perused the documents and heard arguments of parties, dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent /Bank submitted four documents marked as Annexure 1 to Annexure 4 along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC which being relevant in the case were taken on record.
6. We have minutely perused the documents on record and heard arguments advanced by the parties.
7. Undisputedly the appellant/complainant was granted loan of Rs.2,50,000/- in the year 1999 by the respondent/Bank and he had //5 // deposited considerable amount irregularly towards its re-payment, thereby causing frequent defaults but his dispute lays that he had deposited three times of the principal loan amount during the loan repayment period but still his tractor & trolley were repossessed thrice.
8. We observe that as per receipts issued by the respondent/Bank (document at page s.no.13 & 14) complainant deposited in all total amount Rs.7,56,444/- which on physical verification with relevant receipts (documents at page s.no.47 to 69) works out to Rs.7,02.445/-. In the aforesaid list of receipts, the amount Rs.54,000/- shown to have been deposited on 04.06.2004 but it is neither supported by any receipt nor by any cogent evidence so cannot be relied upon. Further on perusal of the initial 3 receipts of Rs.2,826/-, Rs.85,000/- & Rs.21,800/- as appearing in the said list, we observe that those items related to initial expenses such as share, Inspection charges. Form, D.D. charges including F.D. for Rs.5,000/-. Respondent/Bank has clarified in its additional version of reply and also in Para no.3 of the affidavit dated 28.06.2012 of its Branch Manager Shri Suresh Kumar Umre, that besides aforesaid initial expenses, Rs.85,000/- was deposited by the appellant/complainant towards total cost of the tractor & trolley for Rs.3,35,500/- and since the sanctioned loan amount was Rs.2,50,000/- so total Rs.3,33,500/- was remitted by way of draft dated 29.01.1999 to the concerned authorities obviously after adjustment of D.D. charges. We are thus convinced that the initial three items of Rs.2,826/-, Rs.85,000/- and Rs.21,800/- total //6 // Rs.1,09,626/- were adjusted towards miscellaneous expenses other than towards loan repayment. Hence out of the total amount deposited, remaining amount (Rs.7,02,445 - Rs.1,09,626) Rs.5,92,819/- was actually paid towards repayment of loan.
9. We also observe that the appellant/complainant has been a member of the respondent/District Co-operative land Development Bank, Durg so the rules of relevant Societies Act are also applicable to him. As per loan sanction order of respondent/Bank vide document no. Anx-3 (at page s.no.114) complainant was granted loan of Rs.2,50,000/- for purchase of tractor & trolley by hypothecating it and also mortgaging his land as collateral security. As per clause no.9 of mortgage deed, document no. Annexure - 4 (at page s.no.116), loan was repayable in 9 yearly instalments each of Rs.57,135/-. As per condition no.9 of loan sanction letter, in case of non-payment of loan instalment on due date, penal interest on the defaulted amount @ 3% was also payable. As per clause no.2 of mortgage deed simple Interest chargeable on loan amount was @ 17.50% or which would be prescribed by the bank time to time and besides that penal interest of 3% was also payable in the case of default of loan instalment repayment but there is no mention about any other type of interest such as head " Kalateet" interest.
10. During proceedings, the question arose as to what was the "Kalateet" interest as had been charged by the respondent/bank from time to time and what was its rate of interest.
//7 // Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank produced few documents at appellate stage to show the relevant rules about charging interest. Document Annexure - 1 shows that simple interest rate prescribed for such loan from 01.08.1995 was 17.50% and as per document Annexure 2 interest rate was reduced to 13.50 % as on 30.06.2004 but the contents of the circular are not clear about its applicability. Further document no. Annexure - 3 refers about rate of interest on "Kalateet" instalments whereby additional interest @ 0.05% would be chargeable in addition to the simple rate of interest. In terms of section 48 of M.P. / C.G. Co- operative societies Act 1960, it is stipulated that a borrower of loan will pay the prescribed instalment on due date together with prescribed rate of interest and in case of default, interest on the unpaid instalment will be included in the outstanding loan dues so as to show outstanding loan for the next year and additional interest @ 0.05% will be charged w.e.f. 15.01.1998. Document no. Annexure - 4 shows merely the outstanding loan dues head wise and some relevant provisions of C.G. Co-operative Societies Act, 1986. As per section 37-A of M.P./C.G. Co-operative societies Act, 1960 , there is provision that amount towards interest will not be charged more than the amount of Principal loan/advance from certain categories of farmers like the appellant/complainant but as per proviso such provision is not applicable for Development Bank and an Urban Co-operative Bank.
//8 //
11. On perusal of the statement of loan account, as produced by the Bank on record (documents no.Anx-51(2) to 51 (6) ), we observe that it is difficult to understand as to what was the outstanding loan dues as at the end of a particular year. Appellant/complainant is an illiterate farmer and when he was irregular in repayment of loan instalments then the respondent/Bank should have provided yearly/half yearly statement to him in a understandable manner showing the outstanding loan dues as at the end of a particular period so as to caution and provide him due opportunity of preventing accumulation of heavy dues but it failed to do so and issued notices at the fag end of loan period demanding heavy accumulated amount. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued that there was no consistency in the amount of outstanding loan dues as had been shown in the notices issued by the appellant as such it indicated that appellant's action was arbitrary and misleading. He drew our attention towards documents (at page s.no. 172 & 173) in support of his contention. He also argued that the respondent/bank had been arbitrarily charging interest of different categories as is evident from the receipts issued by it (documents no. Annexure - 3 to Annexure - 44). We observe that due to callous attitude of the bank, the appellant/complainant was put to a very precarious condition of losing his tractor & trolley which he wanted to avoid else he would not have deposited amount more than double the principal loan amount. On aforesaid count the respondent/Bank was deficient in service.
//9 //
12. Adhering to the terms & conditions as contained in the Loan Sanction order Annexure - 3 (back page s.no.114 and Mortgage Deed document Anx.4 (at page s.no.116) the appellant/complainant was required to pay only (1) simple interest @ 17.5% and (2) penal interest @ 3% on the accumulated loan dues which was subject to changes as might be prescribed, but bank charged "Kalateet" interest also which was other than on the aforesaid two counts that too without proper intimation to the appellant/complainant. Though auditors had reportedly verified the loan account in terms of accounting procedure but judiciously only that amount is recoverable what was agreed as per the terms provided to the appellant/complainant by way of documents at the time granting loan.
13. Respondent/ Bank charged undernoted amount towards so called "Kalateet" interest from the appellant/complainant which had no mention either in loan sanction letter or the mortgage deed which was not proper. Amount collected under head "Kalateet" interest was unlawfully & unauthorizedly collected from the appellant/complainant as such needs to be refunded with the same rate of interest as charged by the Bank i.e. 13.50% p.a. as per circular issued in this regard ( document no. Annexure - 2 at page s.no.51 filed at appellate stage). -
//10 //
Receipt No./Date Amount Document No.
125834/10.02.2001 5,000.00 Annexure - 12
12243/ 19.01.2002 3,744.00 16
134768/05.03.2002 3,990.00 18
158807/ 16.01.2004 6,271.00 26
58939/ 21.02.2004 3,694.00 27
58984/ 01.03.2004 9,689.00 28
62114/ 12.04.2004 8,784.00 30
78332/ 20.03.2006 23,379.00 35
18812- / 23.04.2007 9,608.00 38
191334/ 01.01.2008 1,583.00 40
191357/ 14.01.2008 8,650.00 41
193760/ 30.04.2008 17,678.00 42
Total : 1,02,070.00
14. In the facts of the case and observation made hereinabove, the appeal of the appellant/complainant finds substance to succeed, therefore, it is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is therefore directed that the respondent/Bank shall :-
(i). Return the tractor & trolley to the appellant/complainant along with relevant papers & also NOC within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.
(ii). Return Rs. 1,02,070/- (Rupees One lac two thousand and seventy only) (received by the Bank towards Kalateet interest) to the //11 // appellant/complainant along with interest @ 13.50 % p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 18.04.2012.
(iii). Pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards mental agony & harassment.
(iv). Pay total cost of proceedings quantified as Rs.3,000/- .
Smt.Veena Misra) (V.K.Patil) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) Presiding Member Member Member /07/2013 /07/2013 /07/2013