Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Rajesh Bansilal Bhandari vs The Branch Manager, on 28 January, 2014

                                         1                            F.A. No. 663-08



     MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
          COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH
                   AT AURANGABAD

                                                      Date of filing: 30.05.2008
                                                      Date of Order: 28.01.2014

FIRST APPEAL NO.: 663 OF 2008
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.507 OF 2007
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: DHULE.

Rajesh Bansilal Bhandari
R/o. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.                              ... Appellant

       VERSUS
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Shirpur Branch, Shirpur,
Dist. Dhule.                                            ... Respondent

Coram :   Shri. S.M. Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member.

Present: None for appellant. Adv. Shri. S.D. Gore for respondent.

- :: ORAL JUDGMENT:: -

(Delivered on 28th January, 2014) Per Shri. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member

1. This appeal is preferred by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Dhule in consumer complaint no.507/2007, whereby complaint is dismissed.

The respondent is the original opponent. For the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as the "complainant" and the respondent as the "opponent bank".

2. The facts of this case in a nutshell are that, the complainant is a head of the joint family and is a farmer having land from Gut No.365/1, 325/2, and 364 from Bhatpure Tq. Shirpur which are owned by his family members. It was submitted that the opponent bank had launched a scheme of "Kisan Gold Card" for the benefit of the farmers. As per this scheme the amount of loan credit was being given to the farmers as per his requirement. That, the 2 complainant therefore had filed application for getting this 'Kisan Gold Card'. Accordingly after completing all formalities the opponent bank issued him the said card for the credit limit of Rs.1,50,000/- and the same was valid for the period 01.09.2006 to 01.09.2009. It was contended that the complainant had approached the opponent bank on July,2007 for obtaining loan amount on his said Gold Card for his standing crop of sugarcane and cotton. However he was not given the said loan amount by the employees of the bank. He had therefore issued notice dated 28.08.2007 to the Branch Manager of the opponent bank for not giving him the loan amount on the said Gold Card. That, the said notice was received by the opponent bank on 30.02.2007, but neither amount was paid nor reply to the notice was given. It was therefore contended that due to non-payment of said amount he could not apply the required fertilizer and pesticides to the standing crop of sugarcane and cotton and had to sustain loss. He therefore filed complaint before District Forum seeking direction to the opponent bank to pay him total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as per the Kisan Gold Card which was issued to him. It was also sought a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the loss of said crops sustained by him.

3. The opponent bank appeared before the Forum and by way of its written version resisted the claim of the complainant. It was submitted by the opponent bank that the complainant was issued 'Kisan Gold Card' inadvertently. It was further contended that the complainant had availed crop loan limit and not the agricultural loan limit, and therefore he was not entitled for 'Kisan Gold Card'. However he was trying to get the benefit of the said card which was wrongly issued to him. It was further contended that his family was sanctioned crop loan limit of Rs.1,50,000/- as on 01.09.2006 and for making disbursement of the said loan it was necessary to sign the prescribed form by all the landholders in his family i.e. his brother Manoj and mother Smt. Sulochana. However despite instructions given to him he did not make his brother and mothers present in the bank for signature and was trying to get the loan amount alone. It was therefore contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of bank and hence the complaint be dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

4. The District Forum after going through the papers and hearing the parties has dismissed the complaint. It is held by the Districts Forum that although the opponent bank had issued the complainant Gold Card for the credit limit of Rs.1,50,000/- it was inadvertently issued to him as he was not sanctioned the loan for agricultural credit limit, but the said credit limit of Rs.1,50,000/- was sanctioned for crop. It is further held by the District Forum that the opponent bank was ready and willing to pay to the complainant the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/ as credit loan provided the other landholders from his family i.e. his brother Manoj and mother Smt. Sulochana were to be made present in the bank for signing the necessary papers. However the complainant failed to apply the instructions of the bank. Thus keeping with these observations the District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

5. Aggrieved by this judgment and order the complainant has filed the present appeal in this Commission. This appeal was finally heard on 17.01.2014. None was present for the appellant. However, his counsel Shri. Endait has already submitted written notes of argument. Adv. Shri. S.D. Gore was present for the respondent. He has also filed written notes of argument. We heard Shri. Gore, learned counsel for the respondent finally and appeal was adjourned for judgment and order. The learned counsel Shri. Endait appearing for the appellant submitted that admittedly the appellant/complainant was issued 'Kisan Gold Card' in the year 2006 by the opponent bank for the credit limit of Rs.1,50,000/-. It was further submitted that the complainant in the month of July,2007 had approached the opponent bank for availing loan on the said 'Kisan Gold Card'. But he was not sanctioned the loan on the ground that the said Gold Card was inadvertently issued to him. He further contended that the complainant had issued notice dated 28.07.2007 to the opponent bank which was received by the bank on 30.078.2007. However the opponent bank had never given any explanation regarding wrong issuance of 'Kisan Gold Card' to the complainant. It is only after the complaint was filed before the District Forum, the opponent bank has taken this stand which is after thought and hence cannot be accepted. He 4 therefore contended that due to non-payment of the loan amount for which the complainant was entitled the opponent bank has committed deficiency in service due to which the complainant had to sustain loss of Rs.2,00,000/- from the expected income of crop of sugarcane and cotton. On the basis of all these arguments he contended that the District Forum has without any proper appreciation of evidence has wrongly passed the impugned judgment and order dismissing the complaint. He therefore requested to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order by allowing the appeal.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri. S. D. Gore, appearing for the respondent/bank submitted that the complainant was given the 'Kisan Gold Card' inadvertently. It was contended by him that as per the scheme 'Kisan Gold Card 'is issued to the person who have applied for agricultural term loan only. But the complainant had applied for crop loan limit and therefore he was not entitled for issue of Kisan Gold Card. But, by mistake the said card was issued to the complainant by the opponent bank. He further contended that the opponent bank was ready to disburse the crop loan for which the signatures of the co-borrowers i.e. the complainants brother and mother were required to sign the prescribed form, however complainant failed to comply the same and hence the opponent bank could not disburse the loan. The learned counsel Shri. Gore therefore contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opponent bank and hence the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. He therefore requested that the appeal having no substance be dismissed by confirming the impugned judgment and order.

7. We have carefully gone through the papers, i.e. copies of the complaint, written version filed by the opponent bank, evidence affidavits filed by both the parties. The papers considering the scheme of 'Kisan Gold Card' as well as crop loan and written notes of argument filed by the counsel for both the parties etc. the main question before us for consideration is, whether the deficiency in service is proved against the opponent bank.

8. The complainant has alleged the opponent bank for providing deficiency in service on the ground that he was not given the loan on the basis of 'Kisan Gold Card' issued to him. As per the scheme of 'Kisan Gold Card' it is observed that the farmers with excellent repayment record can avail "term loan" with flexibility and choice in regard to the amount, time, purpose (including consumption needs) and repayment schedule within prescribed outer limit. For this scheme for being eligible under this scheme the farmers have to fulfill certain terms and conditions under the said scheme. The complainant had applied for issue of 'Kisan Gold Card'. Accordingly the opponent bank had got completed all the formalities. He was issued 'Kisan Gold Card' in the year 2006 for the credit limit of Rs.1,50,000/- and the said card was valid from the period from 01.09.2006 to 01.09.2009. However, when the complainant was approached to the bank in the month of July,2007 for getting loan amount for the purpose of purchasing fertilizers, pesticides etc. for the standing crop of sugarcane and cotton on the basis of the said Gold Card, he was denied the loan amount by the opponent bank.

9. It is the case of the opponent bank that the complainant was issued this 'Kisan Gold Card' by mistake. It is the contention of the bank that the complainant had obtained crop loan credit limit and not for agricultural loan limit and this 'Kisam Gold Card' is only meant for agricultural credit limit. The point is when all formalities i.e. getting executed deed of guarantee, form of declaration, affidavit, hypothecation agreement and taking the charge of the said credit limit on 7/12 record etc. required for issuing 'Kisan Gold Card' were completed by the opponent bank, it can not take the plea that the said card is issued to the complainant inadvertently or by mistake. It is worth to be noted that this gold card was issued to the complainant in the year 2006 and he had approached to the bank for disbursement of loan in the month of July,2007. It is further to be noted that on denial of loan the complainant had issued notice dated 28.07.2007 to the opponent bank and the same was received by the bank on 30.07.2007. However, the bank did not reply to the complainant giving explanation that the said card was issued to him inadvertently etc. It is only after filing of the complaint before District Forum 6 and after receiving notice the opponent bank by way of its written version has made this explanation about the issuance of said card to the complainant out of disturb. This contention of the opponent bank cannot be sustained, because even after receiving the notice on 30.07.2007 the opponent bank has failed to communicate its stand to the complainant. It is further pertinent to note that the opponent bank has not yet cancelled the 'Kisan Gold Card' which was issued to the complainant. Therefore the complainant is very well entitled for the benefit of the said Kisan card as it stands in operation in favour of the complainant.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and observations it can therefore be concluded that by not giving benefits of the said kisan gold card to the said complainant the opponent bank has committed deficiency in service. The District Forum however appears to have neglected all the aforesaid facts and has erroneously passed the impugned judgment and order dismissing the complaint. We are therefore inclined to partly allow the appeal to the extent of giving benefits of the said gold card to the complainant. As regard the compensation claimed by the complainant towards the loss of crop at Rs.2,00,000/-, the same cannot be accepted in absence of any proof or documentary evidence in support of the said claim. However, we are of the opinion to allow reasonable award of compensation towards whatever loss sustained by him and towards the mental and physical harassment he had to face due to non-disbursement of loan.

11. In the result, we pass the following order.

O R D E R

1. The appeal is partly allowed.

2. The judgment and order passed by the District Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. The opponent bank is directed that until the 'Kisan Gold Card' issued to the complainant remains in operation, the complainant be extended the benefits available under it.

4. The opponent bank is also directed to pay a lump sum 7 F.A. No. 663-08 compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards loss of crop and towards mental and physical harassment.

5. The opponent bank is further directed to pay to the complainant Rs.2000/- towards cost of this appeal.

6. Copies of the order be supplied to both the parties.

              (K. B. Gawali)                                     (S.M. Shembole)
            Member                             Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar