State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Govind Ram Sharma vs The Chairman, H.P. State Cooperative & ... on 9 July, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA CAMP AT MANDI. First Appeal No: 191/2010. Date of Decision: 09.07.2012. Govind Ram Sharma S/O Shri Naradhu Ram, Resident of Village Naun, P.O. Sidhyani, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. Appellant Versus 1. The Chairman, H.P. State Cooperative & Rural Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd., Shimla, H.P. 2. The Managing Director, The H.P. State Cooperative & Rural Agriculture & Rural Development Bank, Ltd, Shimla, H.P. 3. The Branch Manager, H.P. State Cooperative & Rural Agriculture & Rural Development Bank, Ltd, Mandi Branch Near Suketi Bridge, Mandi Town, District Mandi, H.P. Respondents Coram Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellant: Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents No1 & 2: Mr. Amar Singh Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Hitesh Behl, Advocate .
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2010, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents seeking issuance of a direction to them to drop the proceedings for recovery of the loan amount and to give him the benefit under loan waiver scheme, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant alleged in his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that he being an agriculturist applied to the respondents for sanction of a loan of `2.50 lacs, for purchase of a tractor and that out of the amount of `2.50 lacs, only a sum of `1,52,500/-, had been disbursed to him, as a result of which, he could not purchase the tractor. It was also stated that when a scheme for waiver of loans raised for agricultural purposes was floated, appellant approached the respondents to waive his loan, but no action was taken on his request.
3. Complaint was contested by the respondents on the ground that the loan has been raised not for the purchase of the tractor, but for setting up a bakery in the year 2002 and on appellants own request, a sum of `42,500/-, out of the loan amount was paid to the supplier of some of the part of a machinery, required by the appellant in connection with the bakery.
4. Learned District Forum has concluded that the loan had been sanctioned for setting up a bakery and not for any agricultural purpose and consequently the complaint has been dismissed. Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order, and, has, therefore, preferred the present appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. We find on record copies of certain documents relied upon by the respondents, which give a lie to the appellants claim. No doubt, the appellant placed on record photostat copy of mortgage deed purportedly executed by him by way of security for the loan, in which, it is stated that the loan was raised for agricultural purpose but the document (Annexure C-5) on the face of it, appears to be of doubtful nature. The date of attestation of the document by the Sub Registrar is 03.04.2008, whereas, the loan, in question, was raised in the year 2002. Also, in the column regarding purpose of loan, it is written installation of agricultural purpose and above these words, tractor is written in a different pen. Also, words agricultural purpose is written in a different hand and different pen.
7. Documents relied upon by the respondents include copy of the mortgage deed, Annexure R-2(B). This is a registered mortgage deed. In this document, the purpose of loan is written installation of bakery. Document was registered on 21.06.2002, when the loan was raised. There is another document relied upon by the respondent, which shows that on the asking of the appellant, a sum of `42,500/-, had been paid to M/S Arora Refrigeration & Air Conditioning, Ram Nagar, Mandi on 18.09.2002, out of the amount of loan sanctioned on 21.06.2002. This document is Annexure R-10, on the record of learned District Forum and is duly signed by the appellant. There is one writing, copy Annexure R-13, in the hand of the appellant, per which he had raised the loan for bakery project.
8. Conduct of the appellant also belies his plea. Loan was applied for and disbursed to him in the year 2002. He raised the issue of the loan being for agricultural purpose, for the first time by filing a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, out of which the present appeal has arisen. This complaint was filed in December, 2008. It was filed only after a scheme for waiver of agricultural loans was introduced.
9. Above discussion makes it abundantly clear that the complaint is false and frivolous. Consequently, it is dismissed and the appellant is directed to pay the respondents a sum of 5,000/-, as cost of litigation.
10. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member July 09, 2012.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?