J.R.Thyagarajulu, S/o late J.Ramaiah Chetty,

Aged about 41 years, Hindu, cultivation,

Residing at z,

Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor District.
… Complainant

VS



1. Indian Overseas Bank, Chittoor Branch rep.,

by its Branch Manager, Chittoor



2. The Senior Divisional Manager, I.O.B., No.763,

Central Office, Anna Salai, Mount Road, Chennai.



… Opposite Parties.





ORDER





This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec. 20 of C.P.Act to direct the opposite parties to give waiver benefit of Rs.50,000/- together with interest under Agricultural Gold Loan G.L.No.266 /2006, dt.23.02.2006 and return the gold jewels of the complainant and pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.



The complainant submits that he is a small farmer having small extent of landed properties. The complainant submits that he has availed Agricultural Gold Loan of Rs. 50,000/- under G.L.No.266 /2006, dt.23.02.2006 from the 1st opposite party Bank by pledging his gold jewels weighing 119 gms. At the time of pledging gold jewels, the complainant submitted the loan application along with Xerox copy of Pattadar Pass Book in respect of his landed property.



The complainant submits that he is having 1 acre 65 cents in S.No. 197 /A and 2 acres 01 cent in S.No. 106 /A totally 3 acres 66 cents situated in Paimagham Village, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor District and he is a small farmer. Except the aforesaid landed properties, he has no other properties. He is entitled to the benefit of waiver of the entire loan amount of Rs.50,000/- together with interest accrued thereon under agricultural gold loan waiver scheme. But the opposite parties have denied the said benefit without any reasons and the opposite parties did not waive the said Agricultural Gold Loan of the complainant.


The complainant submits that prior to obtaining the present Agricultural Gold Loan, the complainant has obtained another Agricultural Gold Loan from 1st opposite party Bank by pledging gold jewels weighing 115 gms. for a sum of Rs.50,000/- under G.L.No.217 /2006, dt.15.02.2006 and the said loan was waived by the 1st opposite party Bank. But the present loan under G.L.No.266 /2006 is not waived by the 1st opposite party Bank without any reasons. It amounts deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He gave legal notice dated 03.12.2008 to the 1st opposite party calling upon the Bank authorities to give total waiver to the complainant’s Agricultural Gold Loan Account with accrued interest and to return the gold jewels to him within one week from the date of the notice.


The 1st opposite party received legal notice and did not give any reply to him. Hence he filed this complaint against opposite parties to direct them to give total waiver of the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- together with interest accrued thereon towards Agricultural Gold Loan G.L.No.266 /2006 dated 23.02.2006 and return the gold jewels of the complainant and compensation of Rs.50,000/- to him.



The 1st opposite party filed written version alleging that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present claim. It is submitted that Clause 3.7 defines “other farmer” i.e., a farmer (cultivating as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 5 acres of land. Clause 10.2 of the scheme prescribes that a Grievance Redressal Officer appointed by the lending institution shall have the authority to receive representations from the aggrieved farmers and pass appropriate orders thereon. The order of the Grievance Redressal Officer shall be final. Without making a representation to the designated authority specified under the scheme, the present complaint before this Forum is not maintainable.



The complainant is not a small farmer owning small extent of property. The complainant availed Agricultural Gold Loan of Rs.50,000/- in G.L.No.266 /2006 dated 23.02.2006 by pledging gold jewels of 119 gms. But the allegation that at the time of pledging the jewels, the complainant submitted Xerox copy of the pattadar pass book for lending the amount along with loan application is not true and correct. The Bank is not collecting any document or pattadar pass book for lending the amount on gold loan and the amount is lent only on the security of the gold ornaments.


A declaration will be obtained from the customer that he is an agriculturist and the extent of land held by him and such declaration is duly signed by the consumer. The complainant has signed the declaration, declaring that he is owning 6 Acres of landed property and that the loan is required for raising sugarcane crop. Secondly the allegation that the complainant owns 3 Acres 66 cents is not true. The opposite party is guided only by the complainant’s declaration to submit the legal proposal to the Government and this opposite party is not vested with the power to investigate whether borrower is a small farmer or not.


This opposite party submits that in para 5 of the complaint, the complainant stated that he availed gold loan of Rs.50,000/- in G.L.No.217 /2006, dt.15.06.2006 is true, but the allegation that he has filed the Xerox copy of the pattadar pass book along with the loan application is not true. The said loan was waived under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme, since, in the said application, the complainant declared that he owns only 5 acres of land. As already submitted that the bank is bound to submit necessary proposal to the Government for waiver basing on the records available.


The the complainant is eligible for waiver of 25% of loan amount or Rs.20,000/- whichever is higher provided that the borrower pays the remaining 75% of the loan amount on or before 30.06.2009 and the complainant did not choose to pay 75% balance amount till now. Hence he is not liable for waiver of the total debt and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.



On the basis of the averments in the complaint and written version the following points arise for consideration:



1) Whether the opposite paties refused to give waiver benefit under

Agricultural Gold Loan Waiver Scheme to the complainant?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to total waiver benefit of

Rs.50,000/- with interest as per the Government scheme?



3) Whether the complainant is entitled to claim damages of Rs.50,000/-?



4) To what relief?



The complainant filed chief affidavit of Pw.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A7

and the opposite parties filed chief affidavit of Rw.1 and marked Exs. B1 to B3.

Points No. 1 to 3:-



It is an admitted fat that the complainant obtained Agricultural Gold Loan of Rs.50,000/- under G.L.No.266 /2006 dated 23.02.2006 from the 1st opposite party Bank by pledging his gold jewels weighing 119 grams. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has not repaid the said gold loan to the Bank. It is also an admitted fact that the Government announced Agricultural Gold Loan Waiver Scheme to the farmers.



The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant is owning Ac.1.65 cents in S.No.197 /A and Ac.2.01 cents in S.No.106 /A totally Ac.3.66 cents situated in Paimagham Village, Thavanampalle Mandal, Chittoor and that the complainant is a small farmer. The learned counsel for the complainant further submits that the complainant is entitled to the benefit under Agricultural Gold Loan Waiver Scheme and the entire loan amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest accrued thereon should be waived as per the Government Scheme. But the opposite parties did not waive the said Agricultural Gold Loan of the complainant, on the ground that the complainant declared in the declaration form Ex.B3 submitted along with the loan application that he owns Ac.6 of land and he falls within the definition of other farmer has defined in Clause 10.2 of Agricultural Gold Loan Waiver Scheme.


The learned counsel for the complainant also submits that the complainant has not declared that he is owning Ac.6 of land. He also submits that he furnished Xerox copy of pattadar pass book along with the loan application to the Bank and the pattadar pass book shows that he is owning Ac.3.66cents of land and that he is a small farmer. He must be given the total benefit under Waiver scheme but he was denied the scheme and the Bank committed deficiency in service and the Bank may be directed to give total waiver of the entire Agricultural Gold Loan amount pertaining to G.L.No.266 /2006 dt.23.02.2006 and return the gold jewels and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to him towards mental agony.



The learned counsel for the 1st opposite party contends that the complainant availed Agricultural Gold Loan of Rs.50,000/- under G.L.No.266 /2006 dt.23.02.20006, but the allegation that the complainant is a small farmer is not correct. He submits that the complainant signed the declaration Ex.B3 and declared that he was in possession of Ac.6 of land and that the loan was required for raising sugarcane crop. The opposite parties are guided only by the complainant’s declaration to submit waiver discharge to the Government. The complainant is estopped from stating that he does not own Ac.6 of land and that he owns Ac.3.66cents of land. The Bank is bound to submit the necessary proposal to the Government for Waiver basing on records available with it.



The learned counsel for the opposite party contends that under Clause 3.7, the complainant falls under the category of “other farmer” and he is eligible for waiver of 25% of loan amount or Rs.20,000/- whichever is higher provided that he repays the remaining 75% of the loan amount on or before 30.06.2009. Since the complainant did not pay 75% of balance amount, he cannot claim any benefit under the scheme. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. And the complaint may be dismissed.



The complainant filed chief affidavit of himself as Pw.1. The chief affidavit of Pw.1 is in the same lines as averred in the complaint. Pw.1 stated that he owns Ac.3.66 cents of land and he is a small farmer. Ex.A2 is Xerox copy of the Pattadar Pass Book. The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the complainant did not mention the extent of the land possessed by him in the declaration Ex.B3 accompanied to his loan application form.


It was filled up by the opposite party after the debt relief scheme was announced. He obtained another Agricultural Gold Loan in G.L.No.217 /2006, dt.15.02.2006 for Rs.50,000/- and the Bank waived the entire loan amount. At that time he submitted the same Xerox copy of pattadar pass book stating that he was owning less than Ac.5 of land. When the Bank waived the said loan under G.L.No.217 /2006, dt.15.02.2006, it cannot refuse to waive the present loan in G.L.No.266 /2006, dt.23.02.2006 for Rs.50,000/-. It amounts deficiency in service.

I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. When the complainant gave declaration that he owns Ac. 6 of land, he is bound by the declaration. Ex.B1 clearly shows that the complainant declared that he owns Ac.6 of land. So he is termed as other farmer as per Clause 3.7 of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Explanation 1 of Clause 3.7 reads as follows:

“The classification of eligible farmers as per the above landholding criteria under the Scheme would be based on the total extent of land owned by the farmer either singly or as joint holder (in the case of an owner-farmer) or the total extent of land cultivated by the farmer (as tenant or share cropper), at the time of sanction of the loan, irrespective of any subsequent changes in ownership or possession.”


In view of the explanation (1) of Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 the Bank is guided by the declaration Ex.B1. The opposite party Bank treated the complainant to the category of other farmers and stated that he is entitled to the Debt Relief of 25% out of the total loan amount, provided that he pays 75% of the entire loan amount on or before 30.06.2009. The complainant disputes the document Ex.B1 regarding the extent of the land mentioned in the declaration form Ex.B1. The pattadar pass book Ex.B2 shows that he owns Ac.3.66 cents of land. On the basis of the pattadar pass book, it cannot be said that the complainant is cultivating Ac. 3.66 cents of land.


At the time of taking loan the complainant might be cultivating some more lands on lease basis. Ex.B1 shows that he is in possession of 6 Acres of land. Explanation (1) to Clause 3.7 reads that the total extent of land cultivated by the farmer (as tenant or share cropper) at the time of sanction of the loan, irrespective or any subsequent changes in ownership or possession is a criteria for applying the Debt Waiver Scheme. Basing on this the Bank has not given the total benefit of Debt Waiver to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Bank. Hence the complaint is dismissed.



Point No.4:-

In the result the complaint is dismissed.

Tmt.N. Selvarani,

W/o. K. Prakash,

1/2E, Ponnar Sankar Nagar,

Periapatti Road,

Namakkal-637 001. .. Complainant



/versus/

Indian Overseas Bank

rep. by its Branch Manager,

Trichy Road,

Namakkal Taluk and District. … Opposite party






ORDER



1. The crux of the complaint is : -

The Complainant is the owner of the property situated in S.F.No.250/7, Periapatti Village, Namakkal Taluk. The Complainant has obtained housing loan from the Opposite Party and she has been paying the dues as per the terms without any default. She again applied for house construction and she had submitted 9 documents to the Opposite Party on receipt of the documents had given clear legal opinion in favour of the Complainant. But the Opposite Party never sanctioned loan nor has returned the



original documents/title deeds to the Complainant. As a result of which the Complainant was forced to borrow money from private money lenders as a result of which she had incurred heavy financial losses. The Complainant has alleged deficiency in service and has lodged the complaint to direct the Opposite Party to return the title deeds or alternatively pay compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-, further compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for financial loss due to non-availability of title deeds, compensation of Rs.3,45,000/- for mental agony, cost etc.



2. The crux of the Opposite Party’s contention in the written version is:-

The opposite party states that it is false to state that the complainant has submitted application and original documents. The panel advocate has not received the original title deeds from the bank as alleged in the complaint. The panel advocate has received the documents directly from the complainant. The opposite party has not promised the complainant of sanctioning of loan. The opposite party bank is not liable for the alleged losses of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank and hence the complaint has to be dismissed.



3. The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 11 documents and the same has been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 and the opposite party too has filed proof affidavit.



4. The point for consideration is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled for?



5. POINT:- The complainant has stated that she is the owner of the property situated in S.F.No.250/7 periapatti Village, Namakkal Taluk. The complainant obtained housing loan from the opposite party and she has been paying the dues as per the terms without any default. The complainant has alleged that she has again applied for house construction and she had submitted 9 documents to the opposite party while applying for loan. The opposite party has refuted that the complainant has not applied for loan nor she has submitted application and original documents. The complainant would have definitely obtained acknowledgement if she had submitted all original documents with the



opposite parties. The complainant has not produced and placed before us any acknowledgement issued by the opposite party for receiving the original title deeds from the complainant. The complainant has stated that panel advocate of the opposite party on receipt of the documents from the opposite party had given clear legal opinion in her favour. The opposite party has contended that panel advocate has not received the original title deeds from the bank as alleged in the complaint but has received the documents directly from the complainant. But, in this regard the complainant has not examined the panel advocate to establish her contention that the panel advocate had received the documents from the opposite party. In the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the submission of original documents with the opposite party we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant that she had submitted all the original deeds with the opposite party and the same was not returned.



6. The complainant has stated that she was forced to borrow money from private money lenders as a result of non-sanctioning of loan and non-return of original documents and that she had incurred heavy financial losses. The opposite party has contended that they have never assured sanctioning of loan as stated by the Complainant. The complainant has not produced and placed before any document to show that the bank has sanctioned loan to her. The discretion of sanctioning loan or denying loan to the opposite party solely rests with the opposite party and this Forum has no powers to direct the opposite party to sanction loan. In view of the above discussion we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Further the opposite party is not liable for the monetary losses suffered by the complainant and as such she is not liable to get any compensation as sought in her complaint.

7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Ajay Kumar son of Sh. Baldev Sharma aged 21 years resident of village Biddi, Post Office Darwar, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.





…Complainant





V/S

1. Manager, State Bank of Patiala Awaha Devi Tehsil Bhorang, District Hamirpur.

2. Manager State Bank of Patiala Anandpur Gurutwar, District Ropar Punjab.

3. Sh. Vinay Kapoor Dealing Assistant ( ATM) State Bank of Patiala Anandpur Sahib District Ropar Punjab.



…..Opposite parties








ORDER.

This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties .The case of the complainant is that he is the subscriber of State Bank of Patiala by opening his account vide No 65019793074 at Awah Devi and had also got the ATM facility and on 1-9-2008 there was amount of Rs.5201/- in his account . The complainant averred that in the month of May , the account balance was Rs.25,100/-.


The complainant alleged that on 30- 8-2008 he wanted to withdraw the amount from his account through ATM but could not withdraw the same as ATM was not responding to the withdrawal of the complainant . The complainant approached the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and inquired about non functioning of ATM facility then he was told that there was technical defect in the functioning of the ATM and when the complainant later tried to withdraw the amount from his account at Anandpur Sahib Branch of opposite parties Bank, he came to know that his account had been made non- operational by the opposite parties No.2 and 3 .


Then the father of the complainant asked the opposite party No.1 why the ATM of his son is not responding then he was told that it is operational and then on his request again he was apprised that the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have frozen the account of the complainant due to withdrawal of the over amount by him. The complainant alleged that on 8-5-2008 he had withdrawn Rs.25100/- from his account . The complainant further alleged that his father approached the Branch Office Anandpur Sahib and he was told by the opposite party No.3 that he will settle the matter and also asked to show the withdrawal slips which were submitted to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 but till date the account is not made functional which reflects the mischief of the opposite parties.


The complainant further alleged that he has represented the matter to the opposite parties on 3-9-2008. The complainant alleged that he is facing financial hardship due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also suffered mental agony. With these allegations , the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite parties to make the account of the complainant operational and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages and cost of the litigation.

2. The opposite parties resisted the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable , that the complainant is not a consumer , that the complainant has no enforceable cause of action against the opposite parties and no relief can be claimed against the opposite parties , that there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice and that the complaint involves complex questions of law and facts which requires adjudication by leading the elaborate evidence triable by civil court.


On merits , the opposite parties had admitted that the complainant had an account at Awah Devi and also got the facilities of ATM but denied that the complainant is customer of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant has not disclosed that he has withdrawn the amount of Rs.15,000/- ,Rs.8700/- Rs.1300/- and Rs.100/- in different transactions on 9-5-2008 itself through ATM operation in Anadpur Sahib ( ATM under the supervision of SBP Anandpur Sahib) which have been duly accounted/ debited in his account .


The complainant has also collected the cash amounting to Rs.15000/- through ATM in transaction No.272 on 9-5-2008 which was not debited to his account as signified in the coded error: *0272*2*E*3, M-18 R-010000000 and on scrutiny of the JP Roll of the said ATM, it was found that cash of Rs.15,000/- has been disbursed by the ATM machine without debiting the account of the complainant . The print roll of usage of the ATM machine by the complainant on 9-5-2008 clearly indicates that the complainant had given successive commands without giving much space time between the transactions . The complainant has been telephoned and requested though various letters about excessive disbursal of Rs.15000/- but he has not refunded the same till date and also pleaded that this fact can only be decided by the civil court only .


The opposite parties have denied that the complainant ever made any inquiry and denied any technical defect as alleged by the complainant . It has also been denied that any mischief has been done by the opposite party No.3 as alleged. It is contended that Bankers lien upon the complainant’s account to the extent of Rs.15,000/- was marked only after the enquiry and confirmation of the concerned documents of the transactions by concerned departments and authorities and after the failure of the complainant to refund the said amount to the opposite parties .


It has further been pleaded that the complainant cannot enrich himself by taking the cash from the ATM machine to which he is not entitled due to some error on the part of ATM machine due to frantic usage by the complainant The opposite parties have denied that the complainant is entitled to damages of Rs.50,000/- on the alleged grounds. It has further been pleaded that the Bankers lien can be marked upon the account of the complainant till the amount of Rs.15000/- is refunded by him to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 which has been taken by him to which he was not entitled and therefore the account cannot be made operational . The opposite party had sought dismissal of the complaint with a direction to the complainant to refund Rs.15000/- with interest .

3. The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and denying those contrary to the complaint.

4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire case file. From the perusal of the record it is revealed that the case of the complainant is that when he tried to withdraw the amount from his account at Anadpur Sahib, branch of State Bank of Patiala ATM through his ATM card , the ATM was not responding. On inquiry he came to know that his account was made non- operational by the opposite parties. Conversely, the case of the opposite parties is that the complainant had collected the cash amount of Rs.15,000/- through ATM in transaction No.272 on 9-5-2008 which was not debited to his account as signified in the coded error: *0272*2*E*3, M-18 R-010000000 and on scrutiny of the JP Roll of the said ATM, it was found that cash of Rs.15,000/- had been disbursed by the ATM machine without debiting the account of the complainant .


According to the opposite parties error on the part of the ATM machine occurred due to the fact that the complainant had given successive commands without giving much space time between the transactions . The opposite parties had also placed on record ATM transaction slips to show that there was a error in the transaction No.272. As per the opposite parties since the complainant has failed to refund the amount of Rs.15000/- despite repeated requests in this behalf , Banker’s lien upon the complainant’s account to the extent of Rs.15000/- was marked and till the time this amount is not refunded , his account cannot be made operational .


After hearing the ld. counsel for the parties ,we are clearly of the opinion that that the dispute and issues raised in the complaint are intricate issues which require elaborate evidence as is apparent from the copies of the documents filed by the parties . The complainant had filed ATM transaction slips which are computer generated . The opposite parties have also filed computer generated record i.e. Print roll of usage of ATM machine , transaction on ATM . The opposite parties have also filed Customer Engineer Call Report Annexure R-5 issued by NCR Corporation India Pvt Ltd Mumbai wherein it has been mentioned as under:-

Analyzed the J.P.role and error against transaction No.272. error generated after successful presentation of cash

The perusal of the aforesaid documents filed by the parties show that the entire record is computer generated and without assistant of an expert , it is not possible for us to decide such claim in summary proceedings of the Consumer Forum .On the basis of the documents filed by the parties , we cannot come to the conclusion as to whether the amount of Rs.15,000/- was disbursed to the complainant without debiting his account as it is not possible for us to give such findings without getting expert evidence . The case of the opposite parties is that the error occurred on account of the fact that the complainant had given successive commands without giving much space time between the transactions .


This fact also requires evidence of an expert as to whether giving of successive commands without giving much space time between the transactions can result into an error . Therefore such disputes which are technical in nature and which require detailed oral as well as documentary evidence including the evidence of experts cannot be gone into in detail in the summary proceedings before the Consumer Forum. In our considered opinion, the dispute involves complicated questions of facts and the same cannot be tried and determined in the summary proceedings before the Consumer Forum.

5 In the light of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent court of jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance , if so advised and the dismissal of the complaint shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

6 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

7 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced