State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Secretary,Vriddachalam ... vs Ramalingam, S/O. Muthusamy ... on 19 January, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBER
Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II F.A.NO.441/2007 [Against order in C.C.No.88/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Cuddalore] DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JANUARY 2011 The Secretary, | Vriddachalam Co-operative Primary Agricultural | Appellant / Opposite Party and Rural Development Bank Ltd., E1325, | Cuddalore Road, | Vriddhachalam 606 001. | Vs. Ramalingam, | Respondent / Complainant S/o. Muthusamy Gounder, | Mettu Theru, Edaiyur Village & Post, | Vriddhachalam Taluk, | Cuddalore District.
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.10,145/- towards the expenses incurred and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.20.12.2006 in C.C.88/2006.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.01.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Submission of respondent as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellant /O.P. : M/s.A.S. Vijayaraghavan & L. Palani Muthu, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Mr. E. Durai, Advocate.
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The opposite party in CC.88/2005 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore, who suffered an adverse order, challenges the same in this appeal.
2. The respondent in this appeal as the complainant, in order to purchase a milch cow, applied loan, paying necessary initial amount and other expenses, totaling a sum of Rs.2,530/- on 11.03.2004. To secure the loan amount, he had also executed a mortgage deed, in respect of his immovable property, by spending a sum of Rs.10,145/-
The opposite party, having obtained the loan application as well the registered mortgage deed, despite number of requests and notice, failed to pay the loan amount or disburse the loan amount, thereby, they have committed not only negligent act, but also deficiency in service, resulting mental agony and other sufferings. Hence, a direction should be issued against the opposite party to pay the loan amount, failing which, they should be directed to pay the expenses incurred namely Rs.10,145/-, in addition to, compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
3. The opposite party admitting the application of loan as well as the permission granted or sanctioned, for a sum of Rs.43,600/-, opposed the complaint, on the grounds, that as per the direction of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank in respect of loan, payable for the year 2003-2004, should be completed on or before 15.3.2004, that though the same was informed to the complainant, requesting him to produce the necessary documents, including the registration of the mortgage deed on or before 15.34.2004, which he failed, whereas, he handed over the documents only 22.3.2004, that for the non-disbursement of the loan, the complainant alone has to be blamed, that because of the financial crisis, it is not possible for the opposite party to pay/disburse the loan amount and if at all, in future, on priority basis, if at all, loan should be granted, that since the opposite party has not committed any negligence or deficiency, they are not liable to pay any amount, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Forum has come to the conclusion, that though the opposite party had received the document on 22.3.2004, failed to disburse the loan, thereby committed negligent act. Thus concluding, a direction has been issued to pay a loan amount of Rs.43,600/-, along with compensation of Rs.5,000/-, as per the order dated 20.12.2006, which is impugned on various ground in this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction, to order the payment of the loan amount since sanctioning and disbursing the loan, would depend upon so many factors, which cannot be the subject matter of the consumer dispute, which are not properly considered by the District Forum. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that because of the defect or non-compliance of the request, committed by the complainant, loan was not disbursed, which cannot be termed as negligent act or deficiency as the case may be, which is not properly considered by the District Forum. Thus canvassing the points, when an attempt was made for upsetting the findings of the District Forum, which is opposed by the respondent/complainant.
6. Undisputedly, the complainant had given an application for sanctioning of the loan on 11.3.2004, paying the necessary fees, such as registration fees, share amount etc., Pursuant to the loan application, as admitted in the Written Version itself, enabling the complainant to purchase the milch cow, loan was sanctioned on 11.3.2004, for a sum of Rs.43,600/-. It is also an admitted fact that the same was informed to the complainant, requesting to furnish the documents, such as mortgage deed etc., But unfortunately, due to some direction from the Apex Body, the opposite party was unable to disburse the amount since that was not within its jurisdiction alone. Branding/labeling this act as negligent act, leading to deficiency in service as said above, a consumer complaint came to be filed, which ended, favouring the complainant, now disputed by the opposite party.
7. The grant of loan as well disbursement of loan, cannot be the subject matter of consumer dispute, since before disbursement of the amount, there is no element of service. The grant of loan is not of right to any member of the Society, therefore, if a Member had applied, loan sanctioned, not disbursed, he cannot claim as of right that the non-disbursement of the loan, should be construed as negligent or deficiency in service since the disbursement should depend upon availability of the amount, though sanctioned, since controlled by the higher authorities.
8. In this case, loan was sanctioned on 11.3.2004. It is the specific case of the opposite party that the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank had issued direction that the disbursement of the loan for the financial year 2003-2004 should be completed on or before 15.3.2004 and before that date, since the complainant has not produced the required documents, they were unable to disburse the amount, which is the case in the notice dated 19.11.2005 itself. As seen from this document, the mortgage deed was registered on 15.3.2004 and the same was handed over to the opposite party only on 22.3.2004, thereby exceeding the time limit prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank. Therefore, there was no fault on the part of the opposite party in not complying the loan sanction order, and in fact they were controlled by the Apex Body, not to disburse the amount after 15.3.2004. It is not the case of the complainant also that he has registered the document on or before 15.3.2004 and handed over and it might not have been possible also, since the loan application itself was given on 11.03.2004 and on the same day, the loan was also sanctioned. Because of the short period available from the date of sanction, and because of the fact, that the complainant was unable to get the document registered, loan was not disbursed, which cannot be faulted. Even in Para 4 of the complaint, financial crisis available on the part of the opposite party, is in a way admitted. When the Bank was not having sufficient funds to disburse the loan amount, despite sanctioning, that cannot be termed as negligent act.
9. In fact, in the Written Version itself, they have expressed their willingness to disburse the amount on priority basis, thereby showing that they have not committed any negligency or deficiency in service and if at all the non-disbursement of the loan had occasioned due to the Circular issued by the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank, as well due to short of time as well want of financial assistance. As said above, one cannot claim as of right that he is entitled to get a loan or even if sanctioned that should be disbursed forthwith, forgetting the other formalities to be followed. In this case, though loan has been sanctioned since the formalities have not been completed and in the meantime, disbursing the amount was restricted upto 15.3.2004, the opposite party was unable to disburse the amount, which cannot be termed as negligent act or deficiency act, as incorrectly held by the District Forum. In the affidavit also, it is not the case of the complainant that he was not informed or he had registered the documents, completed the formalities on or before 15.3.2004.
As seen from the mortgage deed itself, the same was registered only on 15.3.2004 and therefore no possibility, for disbursing the loan also. The District Forum without considering, whether ordering to disburse the loan amount will come within its jurisdiction or whether it is a right vested with the complainant under any contract of service, has issued a direction erroneously, and therefore, we are inclined, to set aside the order, for which, the appeal deserves to be accepted.
10. Admittedly for the loan sanctioned, not disbursed, a registered mortgage deed has been executed by the complainant. Since loan was sanctioned, not disbursed and if the complainant is not willing to pursue the loan further, it is the duty of the opposite party, to cancel the registered mortgage deed and hand over the original also, thereby, erasing the encumbrance. If the complainant is not willing to continue, as the Member of the Society, on such request, we direct the opposite party to refund the share amount if paid as well return the original registered mortgage deed also, canceling the same. With these observations, the appeal deserves to be accepted.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum in OP No.88/2005, dt.20.12.2006 is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost throughout.
12. The Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made towards the mandatory deposit, to the appellant/ opposite party duly discharged, since appellant succeeded, and there is no need to retain the FDR.
S. SAMBANDAM J. JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Ns/mtj/Bank