State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri. Ramababu S/O. Venkat Rao vs The Manager, on 15 September, 2022
1
Appeal Nos.1785/2022 to 1795/2022
Date of filing: 29.08.2022
Date of disposal: 15.09.2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:15.09.2022
PRESENT
Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appeal Nos.1785/2022, 1786/2022, 1787/2022,
1788/2022, 1789/2022, 1790/2022, 1791/2022,
1792/2022, 1793/2022, 1794/2022 & 1795/2022.
Appeal No.1785/2022 Sri.Ramababu,
APPELLANT S/o Venkat Rao,
Age 48 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Sriramanagar, Taluk - Gangavathi,
Koppal District.
Appeal No.1786/2022 Smt.Sridevi,
APPELLANT S/o Raja Govindayya,
Age 26 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Sriramanagar, Taluk - Gangavathi,
Koppal District.
Appeal No.1787/2022 Sri.Raju Govindayya,
APPELLANT S/o Venkateshwar,
Age 35 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Sriramanagar, Taluk - Gangavathi,
Koppal District.
Appeal No.1788/2022 Smt.Seetha Mahalakshmi,
APPELLANT W/o Sambava Murthi,
Age 40 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Sriramanagar, Taluk - Gangavathi,
Koppal District.
2
Appeal Nos.1785/2022 to 1795/2022
Appeal No.1789/2022 Smt.Mangadevi,
APPELLANT W/o Venkateshwar Rao,
Age 55 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Sriramanagar, Taluk - Gangavathi,
Koppal District.
Appeal No.1790/2022 Smt.Huligemma,
APPELLANT D/o Sannadyavappa,
Age 45 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Kuntoji, Taluk - Karatagi,
Koppal District.
Appeal No.1791/2022 Sri.Gopi,
APPELLANT S/o Venkateshwar Rao,
Age 32 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Sriramanagar, Taluk - Gangavathi,
Koppal District.
Appeal No.1792/2022 Sri. Venkateshwar Bokka,
APPELLANT S/o Naganna,
Age 63 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Sriramanagar, Taluk - Gangavathi,
Koppal District.
Appeal No.1793/2022 Sri. Srinivas,
APPELLANT S/o Venkatesh Rao,
Age 40 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Sriramanagar, Taluk - Gangavathi,
Koppal District.
Appeal No.1794/2022 Smt.Mangadevi,
APPELLANT W/o Venkateshwar Rao,
Age 55 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Sriramanagar, Taluk - Gangavathi,
Koppal District.
Appeal No.1795/2022 Smt.Urmila,
APPELLANT W/o Satyababu,
Age 45 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Sriramanagar, Taluk - Gangavathi,
3
Appeal Nos.1785/2022 to 1795/2022
Koppal District.
Advocate - Sri.K.A Patil
V/s
RESPONDENT The Manager,
is same in Appeal SUCO Co-operative Bank Limited.,
Nos.1785/2022 to Gangavathi Branch, Koppal Road,
1795/2022. Gangavthi Taluk, Gangavathi,
Koppal District.
COMMON ORDER
Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER These Appeals are filed by the respective complainants in CC No.41/2022, 53/2022, 39/2022, 55/2022, 57/2022, 56/2022, 60/2022, 35/2022, 54/2022, 58/2022 & 59/2022 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Koppal, aggrieved by the orders dated 26.07.2022 & 03.08.2022 respectively.
2. It is submitted that though Commission below passed order on maintainability on similar such facts and circumstances passed orders on different dates and as the facts are almost similar are taken together for recording common finding and to avoid delay dispense with issuance of notice of this Appeal to the Respondent considering the object of consumer laws.
4Appeal Nos.1785/2022 to 1795/2022
3. Commission examined grounds of Appeal, impugned orders and heard learned counsel for Appellant.
4. Learned counsel for Appellant submits that Respondent/OP is a SUCO Co-operative Bank Ltd., in other word a Banker and the respective appellants being complainant have availed service of Bank. Further submits they are all agriculturist availed loan from Respondent for post harvesting loan by depositing paddy bags and some of whom have discharged loan and some lenders not and submits that they are all consumers as defined U/s.2(7) of C.P Act, 2019.
5. It is found from the impugned orders that the Commission below recorded findings on maintainability and it goes without saying without holding any enquiry on merits of the cases raised by them and even before placing any materials on record. In this regard learned counsel for Appellant submits that Commission below relied on some manipulated documents and recorded finding that the loan availed by respective complainants was for the commercial purpose and in para-10 held, complainant did not fall under the definition of consumer, which in our view is un- acceptable as prima faice complaint averments and documents placed would show that they availed the services of the Bank are to be held comes within the definition of Consumer. In this regard Learned Counsel had shown loan particulars of application, which discloses that they availed loan for harvesting of paddy crop as they 5 Appeal Nos.1785/2022 to 1795/2022 are agriculturist are fits within the definition of consumer, yet Commission below without examining such vital documents held complainants are not consumers is incorrect. The finding recorded by the Commission below that they availed loan for the purpose of trade is not appreciated. In so far as the finding on section.42 of Souharda Shakari Act, 1999 and on Sec.39(3) of Souharda Shakari Act, 1999 is again held incorrect, since no dispute is raised by OP Bank. In our view in such circumstances, when the complaints have shown that they are the agriculturists availed loan for harvesting of paddy crop suffice to conclude that they are the consumers comes within the definition of consumer as defined U/s.2(7) of C.P Act, 2019.
6. Learned counsel to substantiate his contention placed reliance reported in K-Star Rural Farmer Warehouse vs. N.Anki Reddy, wherein held in para-2 as under:
2. The brief facts of the case are that deceased/complainant had stored the paddy and maize in the petitioner's warehouse. He took the loan from respondent no.2 and pledged his paddy and maize lying in the warehouse of the petitioner with the bank. At the time when the paddy was stored in the warehouse of the petitioner, who is in the ware house business, he had issued a receipt acknowledging such storage. At the time of sanction of loan by respondent no.2, the original receipt / ware house bond was pledged with the bank.
The complainant cleared the loan amount with the bank on 25.06.2015. On repayment of the loan, the complainant asked the bank to release his commodity and bank informed the complainant that it would send the original stock receipt and lien lifting letter to the petitioner.
6Appeal Nos.1785/2022 to 1795/2022 and further by the end of para-6 held as under:
We consider all the material available on record, facts and circumstances of the case, we found that there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled for 47.652 Mt./ 627 bags of paddy Commodity or price value of commodity per quintal Rs.1,500/- in total of Rs.7,14,780/- and caused mental agony to the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant not paid the warehouse charges to opposite party No.1.
Hence complainant under obligation to pay warehouse charges to opposite party No.1 at the time of delivery of commodity. The complaint against opposite parties 3 to 7 is not maintainable.
and in para-27 held as under:
27) Another interesting aspect is that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have taken mutually self destructive stand so far as release of the stock deposited by the complainant/farmer is concerned. A duty is cast on the opposite parties 1 and 2 to release the paddy deposited by the complainant immediately after payment of loan amount. Non-delivery of the paddy to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 as contemplated under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties 1 and 2."
In para-13 held in view of the above facts, it cannot said that Fora below have committed any illegality by placing the burden of proof upon the petitioner of those facts which it had contended in its written version and in para-14 we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
7. Thus, we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down in the above decision is directly baring on the facts and 7 Appeal Nos.1785/2022 to 1795/2022 circumstances alleged by the respective complainants in their complaint raised before Commission below. Thus, we conclude Commission below failed to appreciate the case of the respective complainant in right perception even without examining the materials placed on record is an error committed is liable to be set- aside. Accordingly allowed all the Appeals. Consequently set aside the impugned order passed in CC No.41/2022, 53/2022, 39/2022, 55/2022, 57/2022, 56/2022, 60/2022, 35/2022, 54/2022, 58/2022 & 59/2022 dated 26.07.2022 & 03.08.2022 respectively with a direction to receive affidavit evidence, documents, afford opportunity to both parties and record findings keeping in mind the object of consumer laws, S.100 of CPA, 2019 and the ratio laid down by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case cited supra as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of the order.
8. Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as parties to the appeal.
9. Keep the original of this order in Appeal No.1785/2022 and copy thereof in other connected Appeals.
JUDICIAL MEMBER vln*