State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1 Dr. D. Vimala Reddy, W/O Dr. ... vs 1 State Bank Of India, Adb on 25 January, 2022
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTEs REDRESSAL
cOMMISSION:HYDERABAD
C.C.11/2015
Between:
1.Dr.D.Vimala Reddy,
W/o.Dr.K.Karunakar Reddy,
Aged 63 years, Occupation: Doctor,
2. Dr.Kavitha Reddy, W/o. Dr. G.Ashish,
Aged 40 years, Occupation: Doctor
3. Dr.Shilpa Reddy, W/o.Dr. G.Harish,
Aged 38 years, Occupation: Doctor
4. Dr.Ashish Reddy,
S/o.G.Madhusudhan Reddy,
Aged 41 years, Occupation: Doctor
5. Dr.G.Harish Reddy, S/o.Dr. Linga Reddy
Aged 40 years, Occupation : Doctor
(All are residents of H.No.6-1-121, Padmarao Nagar,
Secunderabad - 500 025 T.s.)
(All are represented by their G.P.A. Holder .. Complainants
Dr.Karunakar Reddy, S/o.Late Ranga Reddy,
Aged 69 years, Occ: Retd. Medical Officer,
H.No.6-1-121, Padmarao Nagar,
Secunderabad -25 T.S.)
And
1.State Bank of India , ADB,
Toopran Branch, Main Road,
Toopran, Medak District - 502 334,
Rep. by Branch Manager.
2. National Horticultural Board,
Regional Office, Chirag Ali Lane,
Abids, Hyderabad, Represented by its
Deputy Director. .. Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainants M/s.P.Srinivas
Counsel for the Opposite Parties M/s.Vamaraju Sri Krishnudu-OP.1.
M/s.M.S.Sinivasa lyengar-OP.2
cORAM Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal, President.
And
Hon'ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO.
2Order Complainants under Section 17(1Me.
1. This is a complaint filed by the al)« the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties praying to dir them as follows:
the M.A.T.L. Loan i. to direct the opposite party no.1 by converting Accounts of the complainants into that of the loans secured against effect from 29.12.2008;
the Term Deposits with retrospective ii. to re-calculate the applicable rate of Fixed Interest in respect of Loans and adjust the same M.A.T.L. Loans against the Term Deposit to the Loan Accounts by rectifying their mistakes with regard to the calculation of interest i. to direct the opposite parties to adjust the subsidy amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the Loan accounts of the complainants with effect from 29.12.2008 by re-calculating the interest iv. to direct the 1s opposite party to release the Fixed Deposit Amounts to the complainants with accrued interest; V. to direct opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.35,00,000/- towards damages caused to the complainants towards mental agony, financial loss etc. and vi. to award costs of the litigation.
2 The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The complainants owned agricultural lands in Sikindlapuram Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District. They stated that they are all settled in USA and have executed GPA in favour of Dr.K.Karunakar Reddy to look after their properties and pursue the bank matters. It is their submission that a scheme was introduced by opposite party no.2 for providing subsidies to the agricultural loans raised by the borrowers for their produce. They claim that they were introduced by opposite party no.1 to obtain loan to get subsidy benefit from opposite party no.2. Their GPA holder was informed by opposite party no.1 that all the necessary formalities will be attended to by them and on this assurance, the loan application dt.25.7.2008 submitted and was agricultural term loans of Rs.18 lakhs was sanctioned to each of the complainants by mortgaging their agricultural lands. They were also informed that the opposite party no.1 would charge 0.5% excess interest on the agricultural term loan as against the interest to be given on the fixed deposits with the opposite party no.1.
It is their contention that owing to the negligence of opposite party no.1 they did not receive the subsidy amount from opposite party no.2.
Moreover, the complainants have been compelled to pay interest at a higher rate than that fixed by the opposite party no.1 Bank. Several omissions on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 has caused them great loss, therefore the present complaint is filed seeking the reliefs as stated supra in para no.1 3 would be party no.1l filed their written version stating that they Opposite manner amicable and ready to extend their full support in an always willing is non holder of the complainants Dr.Karunakar Reddy but the GPA Ombudsman The present complaint was filed before the Banking cooperative.
only directives and
to follow the advises which are
and that they were ready on
the complainants
not mandatory. They further submit that they requested
of subsidy claim
and also
for reconsideration
several occasions to apply
loan with the
conversion of MATL to a secured
submit fresh application for
from the
But there is no cooperation
security of the fixed term deposits. on
service
therefore there is no deficiency in
complainants or the GPA holder,
their part and the complaint is devoid of merits.
have their written version submitting that they no.2 filed
4. Opposite party Horticulture through "Development of Commercial formulated a scheme back-ended consideration offor Production and Post-Harvest Management"
cost to the 20% of the total eligible project capital investment subsidy @ from Term Loans Agricultural/Horticulture beneficiaries seeking commercial cultivation of Bank/Financial Institution for their projects for who were one of the several applicants horticulture crops. The complainants have been state that they NHB Scheme. They applied to take benefit of the not consumers as envisaged are wrongly impleaded, as the complainants Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Rejection of the under Sec.2(d) of the the of the Scheme is admitted by application for availing the benefit considered the application before party complainants and this opposite hence There is no grievance made out against them and rejecting the same.
with costs.
to be dismissed in limini the complaint deserves Dr.D.Karunakar Evidence Affidavit of Evidence Affidavit and Additional
5. a s PW.1 filed. Chief Affidavit of Sri G.P.A.Holder of the complainants Reddy, Bank a s PW.2 filed.
N.Lakshma Reddy, Retd. Chief Manger, Maharashtra on behalf of the complainants.
Evidence affidavit Exs.Al to A40 were marked State Bank of India filed on behalf of of Sri K.Siva Prasad, Branch Manager, the opposite party no.1.
Evidence Affidavit of Sri Lakshman Singh , Deputy
Horticultural Board filed on
behalf of the opp-party no.2.
Director, National
filed. Exs.B1 to
Written arguments of the complainants and opposite parties no.1. Exs.B15 & B16 B14 were marked on behalf of the opposite party marked on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.6
are 7 The points that arise for consideration been deficient and negligent in not
i). Have the opposite parties for availing the subsidy benefit?
processing the application converting MATL no.1 been deficient in not in). Has the opposite party deposits and to against security of fixed term loans to secured loans the agreed rate?
recalculate interest for having charged in excess of
to the reliefs as claimed
11) If yes, are the complainants entitled
for?
8. The facts that are not in dispute are:
1. that the complainants had appointed Dr. Karunakar Reddy as their GPA vide Exs.A 1 to A5 to represent them and look after ther property and pursue the bank matters.
i) Loan applications dt.25.7.2008 submitted for sanction of agricultural term loan of Rs.19,90,000/- each, for raising Mango and Papaya Gardens.
ii). Opposite party no.1 Bank sanctioned term loans of Rs.18 lakhs to each of the complainants against the mortgage of agricultural lands and also taking lien against the Term Deposit Receipts for the purpose of raising Mango and Papaya only.
iv). Opposite party no.2 has introduced a Scheme for giving subsidies to the loanees to encourage them to raise the said fruit bearing trees.
9. Point no.l: It is the case of the complainants as represented by their G.P.A. holder that opposite party no.1 induced them and that it is the sole responsibility of the opposite party no.1 bank to submit the documents and complete the process for obtaining the subsidy amount from opposite party no.2 In support of his claim he has filed Ex.A6, which refers to the complainants having addressed a letter to the Banking Ombudsman stating that they have trusted opposite party no.l and handed over all the documents for sanction of agricultural term loans and that interest is being charged at 16.25 % p.a. instead of 12.0%% p.a.
10. Ex.A7 refers to the conciliation meeting and the Ombudsman advised the need to negotiate with the opposite party no.1 bank regarding terms of the contract. They have also clearly stated that regarding the allegations relating to subsidy cannot be attributed to any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 Bank. The opposite party no.l was advised to facilitate and file a revised claim for the subsidy amount. Ex.A9 Tefers to the letter from opposite party no.1 Bank clearly requesting GPA Holder to submit a written request for closing MATL and for fresh documentation for sanction of loan against term deposits.
This exhibit is dt.28.6.2014 and highlights the irresponsibility of the GPA holder. He was asked to submit a written request and this was not complied by him and there is no material evidence to show that such a request was made by him.
Opposite party no.1 issued him a reminder to reconsider the subsidy claim but he did not care to respond.
The conversion of agricultural term loan to a secured loan with security of the fixed term deposits on a fresh application also evoked no cooperauon irom him. For obvious lapses on the part of the complainants (as represented no.1 bank cannot be held responsible by their GPA holder), the opposite party and this cannot be termed as deficiency in service.
and themselves by filing Exs.B11
11. Opposite party no.1 have defended have requested the B12 dt.12.3.2013 and 28.6.2014 respectively, wherein they submit the written request to convert the loan and GPA holder to submit a to National Horticulture Board(Opposite party necessary documents to forward the GPA holder and no.2) for subsidy reliefs. This was not complied with by with an endorsement 'Not Ex.B13 were undelivered registered letters vide 1 has made every effort Therefore, it is clear that opposite party no.
Claimed'.
the complainants, but their GPA holder did not take
to contact and help
necessary steps.
concerned they are the
12. In so far as opposite party no.2 is National Horticultural Board and have contended in their written arguments that the beneficiaries are eligible for Back-ended capital investment subsidy cost. The letter of intent was issued to the @20% of the total eligible project on 3.8.2010. The complainants on 12.7.2008 and the subsidy was rejected reasons for rejection is mentioned in the said letter. The complainants/GPA this letter on record. The opposite party no.2 is not holder has failed to bring obliged to release the subsidy if conditions are not fulfilled. There are guidelines and norms to be complied with for availing subsidy and the applicants are required to submit necessary documents to avail the subsidy.
The point is accordingly decided in favour of opposite parties 1 & 2 and against the complainant.
13. Point no.2: As already discussed in point no.1, opposite party no.1 has not been deficient in not converting MATL loans to a secured loan against the security of the fixed term deposits, since there has been no written request 6 in this regard from the complainants/GPA Holder, inspite of repeated rTeo irom opposite party no.1 vide Exs.B11 and B12. The complainants have fail..
equest iled to respond and cannot blame opposite party no.l.
With regard to recalculating the excess interest charge, we make the following observation:
Ex.B5 page 25 states that the loan limit ATL is Rs.18.00 lakhs to meet the infrastructure and cultivation cost for Mango and Papaya'. In their written version, opposite party no.1 has clearly contended that Papaya was not cultivated and there is variation and reduction in the project cost. The subsidy would have been denied as there was a variation in the project implemented and submitted.
Point is accordingly answered.
14. We have considered the RBI guidelines and circulars for recalculating interest. The complainant counsel has relied on numerous judgements in support of his grievance.
Corporation Bank vs. D.S.Godwa dt.20.6.1994 reported in 1994 SCC (5) 213 Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra and others reported in (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 367 IREO Grace Realtech Private Limited vs. Abhishek Khanna and others reported in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 241.
Specific reference is made to the citation Corporation Bank vs. D.S.Godwa dt.20.6.1994 wherein it was held as follows:
T h e courts cannot reopen any account maintained banks relating to transaction with its customers on by the ground that the rate of interest charged, in the opinion of the courts, its excessive or unreasonable. Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act is a restraint on such power of courts. However, in any case, if it is proved that the interest charged by banks on loans advanced is not in conformity with the rate prescribed by the Reserve Bank then the court could disallow such excess interest and give relief to the party notwithstanding the provisions of Section 21-A Banks are bound to follow the directives or circulars issued by the Reserve Bank prescribing the cture of interest to be charged on loans and any interest charged by banks in excess of the prescribed limit would be illegal and void. Banks cannot charge compound interest with quarterly rests on agricultural advances"
Ex.B6 page 31 shows the loan amount released as 13,81,500/- The interest as per Ex.B5 should be charged on a half yearly basis only but as revealed by Ex.B6 interest has been charged on a monthly basis for the first 3 years i.e. upto 31.5.2012. Thereafter it has been charged on half yearly basis. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 should recalculate the interest on half hot on a pmnuded monthly basis. The complainants desee isideratiwn in this egard onty. The dition of the e ubudennan (ExA) to wnegotiate ate of interst necds to be considered by PpNite Narty no.l bank and they are directed to reduce the bunden laued nn the coyslainants.
ln tie vsult, the complaint is disposed of with the followirng bservatiotnsi OPpsite karty no. t is directed tu mcaleulate the interest on the terni ans and raise the demand Rest of t e clainns of the on the conplainants.
onplainants stand dismissed.
LADY MENBER
PRESIDENT
******************** *********
Date: 25.1.2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For the eomplainant For the opp.parties
vidence A, and Addl Evidence An Evidenoe At. of Sri k.Siva Prasud
Br. Manager, SBl., on behalf of
Dr.D.Karunakar Reddy, Ci.P.A.Holder of complainants as PW.I tiled. OP. I filed.
Evidence AT. of Sri Lakshman Aidavit of Sri N.Lakshma Reddy. Retd. Chief Manger, Maharashtra Bank Singh, Deputy Dircctor, as PW.2 tiled National Horticultural Baari tiled on behalf of the opp. party no.2.
xhibit muarkedon behalf of the complainants Ex.AL Photostat Copy of ogd. G.P.A. issued by the Complainant no. l in favour of Dr.Karunakar Reddy. Ex.A2 :Photostat Copy of regd. G.P.A. issued by the Complainant no.2 in favour of Dr.Karunakar Reddy. Ex.AS Photostat Copy of regd. G.P.A. issued by the Complainant no.3 in favour of Dr.Karunakar Reddy Photostat Copy of regd. G.P.A. issucd by the Ex.A Complainant no.4 in favour of Dr.Karunakar Reddy. Ex.AS: Photostat Copy of regu. G.P.A. issued by the Complainant no.5 in favour of Dr.Karunakar Reddy. Bx.A6 Photostat copy of Lr.dt.31.8.2012 from GPA holder of complainants to the Banking Ombudsnman Photostat copy of onder of Banking Ombudsman dt. 15.1.2013. Ex.A7 Ex.A8 Photostat copy of legal notice dt.24.6.2014 issued by the GPA Holder of the Complainants to the opp.party no.1. Ex.A9 Photostat copy of reply notice dt.28.6.2014 issued by opp.party No.1 to the GPA holder of the complainants. Ex.A10 : Photostat copies of Fixed Deposit Receipts issued by opposite party No.1 Bank Ex.A11 Photostat copy of legal notice dt.25.8.2014 issued by the GPA of complainants to opposite party no. l. Ex.A12 Photostat copy of reply legal notice dt.18.9.2014 issued by Opp.8
for the complainants.
Party no.l to the counsel Ex.A13 : Photostat copy of the Ir.dt.20.12.2014 from the GPA holde of the complainants to the opposite parties. Ex.A14: Photostat copy of Ir.dt.24.12.2014 from the oPp.party no.1 to the Banking Ombudsman.
Ex.A15 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.30.12.2014 from the Banking Ombudsman to the GPA Holder of the complainants. Ex.A16: Photostat copy Bank statement of account ofcomplainant no.1 Ex.A17 Photostat copy Bank statement of account of complainant no.2 Ex.A18 Photostat copy Bank statement of account of complainant no.5 Ex.A19 Photostat copy Bank statement of account of complainant no.3 Ex.A20 Photostat copy Bank statement of account of complainant no.4 Ex.A21 Photostat copy of statement of account of Mr. G.Ashish withregard to Fixed Deposit furnished by O.P.1 Bank. Ex.22 Photostat copy of statement of account with regard to Fixed Deposit of complainant no.3 furnished by O.P.1 Bank. Ex.23 Photostat copy of statement of account with regard to Fixed Deposit of complainant no.5 furnished by O.P.1 Bank. Ex.24 Photostat copy of statement of account with regard to Fixed Deposit of complainant no.2 furnished by O.P.1 Bank. Ex.A25 Photostat copy of statement of account Ex.A26 to complainant no.5 issued by opp.party pertaining no.1.
Photostat copy of Special Term
OP.1 in favour of the Deposit Receipts issued by
Ex.A27 complainants.
Photostat copy of the information Property dt.28.2.2017 issued by Sub-
regarding market value of the
Ex.A28 Photostat copy of Statement Registrar, Narsapur,
Ex.A29: of Account
Photostat copy of Statement of Account of Complainant no.l Ex.A30 of Complainant no.3 Photostat copy of Statement of Account Ex.A31 of Complainant no.2 Photostat copy of Statement of Account Ex.A32 of Complainant no.4 Photostat copy of Statement of Account Ex.A33: of Complainant no.5 Photostat copy of Ex.A34 : Photostat Agricultural Segment- Interest rate structure.
copy of Agricultural Segment- Interest rate Ex.A35 :Photostat structure.
copy Agri Portfolio Loans upto Rs.25 lakhs Ex.A36 : Photostat Ex.A37 copy of Agricultural Segment- Interest rate Photostat copy of Lr.Dt.1.7.2013 structure.
of Maharashtra, Credit issued by Bank Ex.A38 Priority Dept. Photostat copy of Circular Bank of Maharashtra.
dt.11.7.2005 issued by Ex.A39 : Photostat copy of Circular of Maharashtra with dt.1.7.2010 issued by Bank Ex.A40 : Photostat regard to interest on loans and advances copy of Circular issued by Bank of Maharashtra.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the opposite party no.1 Ex.B1 : Photostat copy of sanction in favour of the Ir.dt.10.12.2008 issued by O.P.11 Ex.B2 complainant no.1.
:Photostat copy of sanction Ir.dt.10.12.2008 in favour of the complainant no.2. issued by O.P.1 Ex.B3 Photostat copy of sanction Ir.dt.10.12.2008 in favour of the issued by O.P.1 Ex.B4 complainant no.3.
Photostat copy of sanction Ir.dt. 10.12.2008 in favour of the issued by O.P.1 Ex.B5 complainant no.4.
: Photostat copy of sanction Ir.dt.10.12.2008 in favour of the issued by O.P.1 complainant no.5.
Ex.B6: Photostat copy of Statement issued by opp.party no.1. of Account complainant no.1 of Ex.B7 Photostat copy of Statement of Account of issued by opp.party no.l. complainant no.2 9 of Statement of Account of compiainant no.3 oo ani Ex.BB Photostat copy issued by opp.party no. 1.
Ex.B9 Photostat copy of Statement of Account of complainant no.4 issued by opp.party no.1.
Ex.B10 Photostat copy of Statement of Account of compiainant no.5 issued by opp.party no.1.
Ex.B11 Photostat Ir.dt. 12.3.2013 from opp.party no. ! to tihe copy of GPA of complainants.
opp.party no.1 to GPA oí
Ex.B12 Photostat copy of Ir.28.6.2014 from
Complainants.
Ex.B13 Returned postal cover.
Ex.B13A: Acknowledgement card.
no.i
Ex.B14 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.6.1.2015 issued by the opp.party
to the GPA of the complainants.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the opposite party no.2: Ex.B15 Authorization lr.dt.21.1.2016 issued by opposite party no.2 Director to act on authorizing Sri R.K.Agarwal, Deputy their behalf.
no.z Ex.B16 Authorization lr.dt.20.3.2017 issued by opposite party Deputy Director to act on authorizing Sri Lakshman Singh, their behalf