Shri Guru Dev Amrit Rice Mills, Dudhal Road, Maloud, Distt. Ludhiana through its Partner Sh. Harinder Singh.
(Complainant)
Vs.

1- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Patiala Gate, Nabha through its Authorised Signatory.
2- Bank of India, Maloud branch Distt. Ludhiana through its Manager.

(Opposite parties)

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
….
Quorum:
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.
Present:
Sh. G.S. Pahwa Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rajiv Abhi Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Dheeraj Sood Adv. for opposite party no.2.

O R D E R
T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1- Complainant running a rice Sheller, got insured stocks vide cover note no.177134 dated 7.4.2005 from opposite party on. On 28.6.2005, due to thunder flash/lightening, stock of husk lying in the premises of the complainant, valuing Rs.10 lacs got burnt. Claim was lodged with opposite party no.1 and intimation was given to opposite party no.2, through whom policy was taken. Police report was also made. Opposite party no.1 engaged Sh. Chander Shekher surveyor to assess loss. Complainant submitted entire information sought by the surveyor as well as investigator. But they failed to settle the claim. Hence, wrote letters to opposite party no.1. Subsequently, opposite party no.1 vide letter dated 5.9.2006, repudiated the claim, on ground that it was not payable under terms and conditions of the policy. Such repudiation is claimed to be null, void and illegal, by filing the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is alleged by the complainant that fire took place, due to lightening. Hence, entitled for Rs.10 lacs as loss suffered by him in the fire along with Rs.1 lac compensation and Rs.20000/- as litigation costs.



2- Opposite party no.1 in reply, claimed that this Fora has no jurisdiction, to try the complaint, as there is no deficiency in service. They obtained admitted obtaining insurance policy by the complainant and lodging claim, as alleged. Engaging surveyor Sh. Chander Shekhar and investigator Sh. Harjit Singh, is admitted. Averred that after receiving report of surveyor and investigator, claim has been rightly repudiated as no claim vide letter dated 5.9.2006. Because it wasn’t payable under terms of the policy. The claim was duly entertained, got appointed investigator. Reported claim was false and fraudulent. As per report of the surveyor, loss was the result of ‘spontaneous combustion’, due to oxidation of rice husk. It was a natural and inherent process of the rice husk, due to its vary nature of contents of oil and fatty acids. The investigator also found that there was no lightening strike on that day in the area and the insured allowed the stocks burn and smolder for a long time, so as to fetch undue claim, as stocks otherwise, was of no use to the complainant, not could have it fetched market value. As such, complaint is not maintainable and complaint not entitled to any relief.



3- Opposite party no.2 in reply pleaded that complaint is not maintainable, complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties, as opposite party no.2 is not a necessary party. Admitted that complainant informed them about fire, which they informed to opposite party no.1.



4- Complainant and opposite party no.1, in support of their pleadings, produced affidavits and documents in evidence. Parties stood heard through their respective counsels.



5- Repudiation of the claim was made vide letter Ex.R10 dated 5.9.2006 of the opposite party. This repudiation is based upon reports of Sh. Chander Shekhar surveyor and Sh. Harjit Singh Investigator.


6- Sh. Chander Shekhar surveyor was engaged by opposite party, to look into claim of the complainant. He had submitted report Ex.R11 dated 18.8.2006 and in support, filed own affidavit Ex.RW3/A. He concluded after conducting investigation, that result of the fire was due to spontaneous combustion, because oxidation of rice husk has been a natural and inherent process of rice husk, due to its vary nature of contents of oil/fatty acids. Hence, he opined that such loss wasn’t covered under terms and conditions of the insurance policy.



7- Opposite party had also engaged Sh. Harjit Singh Retd. SP, to investigate the claim of the complainant. He after investigation, submitted report Ex.R22 and in support filed own affidavit Ex.RW2/A. After carrying out investigation qua fire of the rice husk of the complainant, he intimated that under no fire brigade was called, nor any means were adopted to put off the fire. He conducted door to door enquiry in the vicinity of the mill affected by the fire. In that way, recorded statements of Sh. Bahadur Singh, Secy. Bhartiya Kisan Union, Jaswinder Singh Asstt. in Pb. State, Gurpreet Singh, Bhim Singh, Kamaljit Kaur, Deepan Singh etc., and came to know that no lightening on the day, as claimed by the complainant. He then concluded that old husk got affected by spontaneous combustion, resulting in smouldering and overheating, due to its inherent nature of oxidation. It was not cause by sky lightening. He further concluded in his report that paddy husk lying on backside of the rice mill, continued to burn for two months.



8- Whereas, on behalf of complainant, it has been pointed that wrong and false reports by the surveyor and investigator of opposite party, stand submitted. Because, complainant through evidence produced, has been able to prove that husk got burnt, due to lightening in thunder flash. In this behalf, reference was made to affidavit Ex.CW1/A of Sh. Harinder Singh partner of complainant firm, Harbans Singh Lamberdar Ex.CW2/A, Jarnail Singh Ex.Sarpanch Ex.CW3/A and Sant Ram Chowkidar of complainantn’s mill Ex.CW4/A. According to them, husk got burnt in thunder flash/lightening.



9- At this stage, we may venture to record that as per reports of the surveyor and investigator Ex.R22 and Ex.R11 respectively, husk of the complainant firm, was lying along with husk of another rice Sheller in the name of Jai Guru Dev Gram Udyog , who had taken insurance of its stock from National Insurance Co. At this stage, we may add that Jai Guru Dev Gram Udyog, have filed separate claim against National Ins. Co. Ltd., qua damage to the husk due to lightening. In that case, National Insurance Co. had engaged surveyor Mr. Lall & Co., who had filed report, copy of which is Ex.R8. That surveyor had also opined that no incident like thunder flash and lightening, as alleged, had happened, nor it had caused fire to the rice husk and that it got affected, due to inherent vice i.e. its natural properties due to oxidation. Complainant has also placed on the record, copy of news item Ex.C3 qua damage to the husk. Ex.R2 is copy of the policy, covering insurance against fire. But the policy excludes destruction or damage caused to the property insured, by its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion.



10- On behalf of complainant, on the strength of case reported in M/s Taj Sugar Works Vs Punjab National Bank & Anr. I(2000)CPJ-448(UP State Commission), it was argued that burning due to spontaneous combustion stands covered under the definition of fire, when policy taken was of fire, no additional premium, as required to be paid for spontaneous combustion. Hence, opposite was liable to pay damages, assessed by the surveyor, along with interest.



11- In the present case, as such, there is a serious dispute between the parties qua the cause of fire whether it was due to lightening in thunder storm or it happened on account of oxidation and consequently, was spontaneous combustion, for which no extra premium was paid. Hence, claim is excusable or exempted under the policy.



12- In view of conflicting material on the record, we may stay that complainant subsequently, has not been able to prove that husk got damaged or burnt, due to spontaneous combustion, or due to lightening. Because such matter needs to be gone through thoroughly, requiring quantum of evidence, providing opportunity of cross examination of witnesses produced by the parties. Furthermore, in the present case, it has come from the report of the investigator Ex.R22 that husk of the complainant as well as of another party titled as Jai Guru Dev Gram Udyog, was lying side by side and the total loss was combined of both the units. As such, it is not possible for us even if we have to allow the complaint, to decide to what extent was damage to the husk of the complainant and to what extent of Jai Guru Dev Gram Udyog. To decide such matter, it elaborate evidence requires to be led by parties. Hence, we can not go into such matter, as required to be decided in a detailed inquiry before a civil court. In coming to such conclusion, we stand fortified from a case reported in Sheel Kumar, Narendera Paper Products & Anr. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2008(3)CLT-643((NC).



13- In similar circumstances like this, in another authority reported as Champalal Verma Vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2008(3)CPR-22(NC), it was held that report of surveyor is to be given due weightage and since the case involved quantum dispute, Consumer Fora can not go into such question, as it involved a detailed investigation. This can not be dealt in summary proceedings.



14- Furthermore, in J.K. Corp. Limited Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2008(3)CLT-624(NC), it was held that burden of proof to establish that contemplated peril occurred, is on the insured. Simply stating that damage occurred won’t be sufficient to establish the peril.




15- In these circumstances, we feel that when allegations of catching fire of the husk of complainant due to lightening, are not established and that investigator had found damage due to spontaneous combustion, so it is necessary that matter be probed thoroughly, by detailed inquiry, which is not possible in the present case. Furthermore, husk of the complainant as well as of another party, was lying in the same premises side by side and damage was suffered by both of them. Out of it, how much loss was suffered by complainant and how much by the other party, who has also filed a separate complaint, it would be impossible in the absence of detailed evidence, to decide. Therefore, having regard to these facts, we refrain from deciding the matter and leave it to be decided by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Complainant if so advised may seek his remedy before the proper authority.

I lodged a complaint for insurance claim for a fire that took place in my factory 3 years back. I use mustard husk for producing bio mass briquettes and fire took place in a stock of husk.
The insurance company says that the fire took place due to spontaneous combustion and is running a case to avoid paying the appropriate compensations against the insurance premium paid to them. Can you please advice if the mustard husk has such spontaneous combustible properties and if it does, do possessing such property enough to prove that the case is of spontaneous combustion

DATE OF FILING : 28.08.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 05.01.2010

APPELLANT

1. Mr. Dilip Kumar Banerjee

Prop. of B.Bros. & Co.

13A, Nirmal Ch. Street

Kolkata-700 012.

RESPONDENT

1. Chief Manager,

Bank of India

Calcutta Overseas Bank

Foreign Exchange Remittance Section

23B, N.S.Road

Kolkata-700 001.

BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI

FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. N.R.Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Ms. S.Halder, Ld. Advocate


: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 30.7.09 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 38/2007 wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the petition of complaint on contest without cost.

The Complainant/Appellant’s case before the Ld. Forum, in brief, was that the complainant deal in books and journals trading published from Indian and other various foreign countries. For the purpose of facilitating such purchase of books from various publishers the complainant entrusted the OP/Bank to do the needful and in terms of such business practice with the Bank the complainant instructed the OP/Bank to remit US $486 from his account in favour of a foreign publisher. Subsequently as the complainant did not receive the purchased articles namely books and journals, etc., the complainant enquired into the matter and found that no amount was remitted to the said foreign publisher as instructed by the complainant. Besides that, as per usual practice the OP/Bank debited the complainant’s account with service charges and postage charges for the aforesaid transaction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such activities on part of the OP/Bank the complainant instituted the petition of complaint for proper redressal.

The OP contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that there was some non-compliance of usual practice and procedures on the part of the complainant in the aforesaid transaction, due to which there was some delay in remitting the required amount to the foreign publisher. The OP also contended that they were ready and willing to compensate the complainant if the amount did not reach the publisher adequately and that the OP was always ready and willing for amicable settlement. The complainant without being agreeable to do so approached the ombudsman where his case was not accepted and subsequently the complainant had filed the present complaint, which is liable to be dismissed.

The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that as the complainant himself averred that he deals in purchase of books and journals for business and commercial purpose, there was no question to identify the complainant as a consumer as the provisions of Consumer Protection Act is very much clear on this point and accordingly adjudged the complainant not to be a consumer and dismissed the petition of complaint.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Respondent that when the complainant has admitted in his pleadings that he deals in books and journals for business purpose, which is of commercial in nature, question of designating the complainant as a consumer does not arise at all. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, the OP/Respondent was ready and willing to settle the dispute amicably, but for reasons best known to the complainant he was not agreeable to such proposition. The Ld. District Forum was quite justified in adjudging the complainant not a consumer in a true sense and as such, there is no scope of interfering with the finding of the Ld. District Forum and the Appeal should be dismissed.

We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Respondent and have gone through the materials on record including pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant did put forward a case to the effect that the complainant deals in purchase of books and journals from India and also from abroad and for the purpose there was an understanding between the complainant and the OP/Bank to remit money to the foreign publishers. From the materials on record we find that the Op has not denied the non-remittance of the amount in question and even was ready and willing to settle the dispute amicably. But the complainant was not agreeable to such proposition and had filed the petition of complaint, which, according to the OP, is liable to be dismissed. From the materials on record we find that it is a fact that in the pleadings the Appellant/Complainant has designated himself to be in business of purchasing and selling books and journals for commercial purpose and that was his business. A litigant may designate himself to be a businessman for commercial purpose, but that will not ipso facto designate himself to be a businessman for commercial purpose by itself as while adjudicating on the point it is to be borne in mind the circumstances and conduct of the parties in this regard. Keeping in mind this proposition we find that the complainant/Appellant happens to be a mere purchaser of books and journals from Indian and abroad for value and that the OP/Respondent was entrusted for the purpose for smooth transaction of business. There is also no denial of the fact that though the money was not actually remitted to the foreign publisher in question, yet the OP debited the complainant’s account for service charges and postal charges. In this regard we find that for reasons best known to the complainant/Appellant he was not agreeable for amicable settlement which was fairly proposed by the OP. Now, keeping in mind that Consumer Protection Act being a benevolent legislation we are of considered opinion that simply because the complainant has averred in his petition of complaint that he deals in books and journals for commercial business will not debar him to get relief in terms of Consumer Protection Act. In this regard, we hold that the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs and as such has arrived at a wrong and improper decision thereby designating the complainant not to be a consumer in the true sense of the Act. Having considered the present matter in the light of above observation we are of considered opinion that there is merit in the present Appeal and the same should be allowed. However, in this regard, we take note of the fact that the complainant ought to have accepted the proposal of the OP for amicable settlement. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.

Hence, it is ordered that the Appeal stands allowed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement stands set aside. The Appellant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 9,720/- (Rupees nine thousand seven hundred twenty only) equivalent to US $486 and the OP is directed to credit the account of the complainant/Appellant accordingly. The complainant also do get a token compensation of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in this regard. The above amounts shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30(thirty) days from the date of this order, failing which the same will accrue interest @ 9% (nine per cent) per annum for the period of default.

Appeal case No.291/2009

Date of institution:26.5.2009

Date of decision :7.1.2010

1] Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) through its Registrar, Investor Services of India Ltd., IDBI Building, 2nd Floor, “A Wing”, Sector 11, Plot No.39 to 41, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614(Through DGM, SIDBI, Chandigarh).

2] Managing Director, Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI), Head Office: Vikas Deep, 22, Station Road, Lucknow-226019 presently at SIDBI Tower, 15, Ashok Marg, Lucknow (through DGM, SIDBI, Chandigarh).

3] General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI), SCO No.145-146, (First Floor) (Opp. Mehfil Restaurant) Sector-17, Chandigarh- 160017. Through DGM, SIDBI, Chandigarh)

….…Appellants

V E R S U S

Dr.Saraswati Gupta D/o Sh.Naurata Ram Gupta, Aged 57 years, Resident of House NO.(Type-II), 29,Sector 25, Panjab University Campus, Chandigarh,and presently working at Dr.H.S.Judge Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital, Panjab University, Sector 25, Chandigarh.

.…Respondent

Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 15.05.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh.

Argued by: Sh.P.K.Kukreja, advocate for the appellants.

Sh.J.N.Gupta , advocate for the respondent.

BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen. S.P.Kapoor (retd), Member

Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member

JUDGMENT

7.1.2010

Justice Pritam Pal, President

1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 15.5.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby the complaint bearing No.1522 of 2008 filed by Dr. Saraswati Gupta, respondent /complainant was allowed in the following terms ;

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the OPs retained the amount of Rs.9,600 x 2 = Rs.19,200/- since 1.2.2002 till 27.6.2008 when the amount was actually paid to the complainant. The OPs are, therefore, bound to pay interest on the said amount of Rs.19,200/- @ 8% per annum for the said period. The amount shall be paid within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 22.12.2008 till its payment alongwith litigation costs of Rs.2,500/-. ”

2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3.. The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus ;

The complainant had purchased Two Deep Discount Bonds bearing certificate Nos.00394101 & 00394102 of Rs.2500 each in the year 1993. The face value of those bonds as mentioned in the bond certificate was Rs.1.00 lac each as on 1.1.2018. The complainant had option to get encashed the said bonds at the end of 5th, 9th, 12th, 15th or 20th year as per their face values at the end of every such year. It was alleged that on 27.6.2008 when complainant visited OPs, she was informed that the scheme in question had been cancelled, so she should withdraw her amount. Accordingly the complainant applied for the encashment of her bonds. Thereafter, she received two cheques of Rs.17,752/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.7752) issued by OPs and the interest paid on the principal amount of said bonds was only for the period from 1993 till 2002 whereas it should have been paid till June, 2008, the date on which it was withdrawn as the amount was being utilized by the OPs upto that period. The OPs had neither informed the complainant that the scheme had been cancelled and she should withdraw her amount, nor on the cancellation of scheme the OPs sent the deposited amount with interest at the address of complainant. The complainant then sought the proof/document from OPs whereby she was informed about the cancellation of said scheme but OPs failed to supply the same. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

4. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Consumer Forum was that the option of early encashment/ redemption was available to both the parties i.e. the Issuer (Call option) and the Holder (Put Option) at the end of 5th, 9th, 12th, 15th and 20th year and therefore, the OPs had exercised the call option in the 9th year, as per the terms & conditions of the offer document. It is also stated that as per the terms & conditions of the offer document of said bonds, the OPs were required to announce its intention of compulsorily redeeming the Deep Discount Bonds at the end of the stipulated period from the date of allotment, in one English and one Hindi daily newspaper and also communicate to all the registered holders of the bonds at least 6 months in advance and accordingly, OPs published a public notice in all the leading national & regional dailies i.e. Dainik Jagran dated 1.7.2001, Times of India dated 2.7.2001 & Dainik Bhaskar dated 1.7.2001 informing the Unit Holders as well as General Public about the call option. Thereafter, the OPs issued individual letters along with Form 15H/15AA, under Certificate of Posting (UPC) on July 24, 2001 to all investors requesting them to surrender the duly discharged Bond Certificates for redemption. Subsequently letters dated 9.5.2005 and 3.7.2006 were also sent to remaining bond holders who had failed to surrender their bond certificates for redemption including the complainant. The complainant had not surrendered the bond certificates well in time, therefore, she was not entitled to interest after the year 2002. According to OPs, their liability towards the complainant was limited to Rs.9600/- per bond which was duly paid to her.

5. The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite parties have come up in this appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully. The only noticeable point of arguments raised on behalf of OPs is that in fact at the time of closing the scheme the due intimation was given to the registered bond holders through newspapers and also individual letters were sent to them under certificate of posting (UPC). Individual intimation, if not received by the complainant that was not fault of OPs as her change of address was not intimated well in time. At the fag end of his arguments, reference was also made to the copy of order annexure R-8 where in similar circumstances no relief was granted by the District Fora under the Consumer Protection Act to the complainant. These points of arguments have been repelled by the learned counsel for complainant.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions putforth on behalf of the parties and find no force in the above pleas taken on behalf of OPs, inasmuch-as at the first place, one of the terms and conditions of the offer document annexure R-1 between the parties reads as under ;

“REDEMPTION/ WITHDRAWAL

Deep Discount Bond

In the event of SIDBI deciding to compulsorily redeem the Deep Discount Bonds at the end of the 5th or 9th or 12th or 15th or 20th year from the date of allotment, it will announce its intention to do so in one English and one Hindi daily newspaper and also communicate to all the Registered holders of such bonds, atleast 6 months prior to the date of redemption.”



A perusal of the above condition makes it mandatory upon OPs to give the due intimation about their intention of compulsorily redeeming the Deep Discount Bonds by announcing in one English and Hindi newspaper and also communicate to all the registered holders of such bonds at least six months in advance. Here in the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the intimation was published in the newspapers but the same is not proved to have been sent in any manner to the complainant as required under the terms and conditions of the offer document annexure R-1.

8. Here it is also pertinent to mention that as per letter No.2055-56/UIPS dated 31.5.2006 issued by the University Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Punjab University, Chandigarh complainant is shown to be working in the same department of which address she had furnished at the time of issuance of Deed Discount Bonds. Admittedly the scheme was cancelled somewhere in the year 2001,so, there was no change of address during the relevant period when the intimation should have been sent by OPs.

9. Moreover, there is nothing on the file which could inspire confidence regarding sending of any intimation about the intention of OPs of compulsorily redeeming the Deed Discount Bonds. Further it is also evident that in the similar order annexure R-8 as relied upon by OPs, there was proof of giving intimation about the scheme to complainant whereas in the instant case before us there is no document on the file for having sent any intimation to the complainant. In this view of the matter, OPs cannot be allowed to evade their liability of paying interest over the amount of Deep Discount Bonds held by complainant till they utilized the same which has been rightly assessed at Rs.9600/- each.

10. In the result, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs.3000/-.

Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.

Complaint Case No.230/2008

Date of Institution 28-8-2008

Date of Decision 25-11-2009
Rehmat Ali son of Sh. Lal Dean resident of village Raru

( Dinak) Post Office Upper Behli, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.

…Complainant.

V/S

1. The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office SCO-181-182 Sector 17.-C Chandigarh .

2. Rakesh Kumar Tandon Manager, Zonal Office SCO 181-182 Sector, 17C Chandigarh.

3. The Senior Branch Manager, Bank of India, Branch Office School Bazar, Mandi.

4. Raj Pal Singh son of Sh.Anant Ram resident of House No.154/7Upper Samkehter Near Khatari Sabha Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

..Opposite parties

For the complainant Sh. Noor Ahmad, Advocate

For the opposite parties

No. 1 to 3 Smt. Kiran Narula,, Advocate

Opposite party No.4 Exparte

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

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 proposed to the opposite party No.4 to construct a residential house at village Raru ( Dinak) and for this purpose the complainant needs money. The opposite party No.4 assured the complainant that he had good relations with the opposite party No.2 . Then the complainant alongwith opposite party No.4 contracted the opposite party 2 in the month of November 2003 and the opposite party No.4 persuaded him to take the loan from the opposite party No.2 by misrepresenting the facts. That the proposal for construction of house of the complainant was also represented by the opposite party No.4 which was accepted by the opposite party No.2 and required some documentary formalities i.e. plan/ map of the house and abstract of cost of the house, any sale deed in his name and one guarantor and said loan was to be returned within 15 years . The opposite party No.2 had obtained the signatures of the complainant on so many papers without making him understand the contents thereof . The complainant alleged that he had furnished all the required formalities and applied for the house loan in the month of November 2003 . The opposite party No.2 had sanctioned a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as house loan in the month of November 2003 and obtained five blank cheques No.175726 to 175730 as security from him and when he agitated about signed blank cheques then the opposite party No.2 stated that if the blank signed cheques which were required as security basis were not submitted till then no loan would be disbursed and these cheques would be used by the Bank when he became defaulter. During this process of loan, the complainant met with an accident on 17-11-2003 and his left foot ankle had been fractured and was confined to bed and unable to visit Bank to withdraw the first instalment in the month of December 2003 . Then the opposite parties No.2 and 4 came to the house of the complainant to meet him and to visit the site of under construction house for the purpose of release of first instalment and one blank signed cheque and one self cheque was also issued to the opposite party No.2 in the presence of opposite party No.4 and that cheque in the sum of Rs..1,50,000/- has been withdrawn by the opposite party No.2 by some unknown person as well as self cheque of Rs.15,000/- has also been withdrawn by the opposite party No.2 and the payment has been sent by the opposite party No.2 to him through the opposite party No.4. The opposite party No.4 stood as a guarantor to the complainant and also present at the time of completion of formalities as well as sanction of loan . The complainant averred that he had withdrawn the amount of cheque No 175731 dated 12-12-2003 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- , cheque No.175732 dated 12-12-2003 for Rs.15,000/- , cheque No.175733 in the sum of Rs.5000/-, cheque No.175734 dated 26-12-2003 for Rs.65,500/-, cheque No.175736 dated 30-12-2003 in the sum of Rs 37,000/-, cheque no.175737 dated 6-2-2004 for Rs.25,000/- and cheque No.175738 dated 9-2-2004 in the sum of Rs.4600/-. That when the complainant visited the opposite party No.3 for withdrawal of next instalment , same was refused on the ground that total sanctioned amount had already been withdrawn by him and when he agitated that he had not withdrawn the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and asked for issuance of statement of accounts , the same was refused . The complainant alleged that he approached the higher authority of the Bank but no action was taken . The opposite parties No.1 to 3 have issued a notice dated 6-1-2005 to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi for attachment of the property of the complainant without informing him which act on the part of the opposite parties is highly illegal and amounts to deficiency in service . The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties No.2 and 4 in a planned manner misappropriated the cheques No. 175726 to 175730 in the name of unknown persons . With these averments , the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to release Rs.5,00,000/- in his favour and charge interest on Rs.3,00,000/- which was withdrawn by him . Apart from this order for investigation of the misappropriation of the money by the opposite parties No.2 and 4 has also been sought Besides Rs 50,000/- has been claimed as compensation for mental tension etc. and a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been claimed as costs of complaint.


2. The opposite party No.1 to 3 filed reply and raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable , that the complaint is abuse of the judicial process, that the section 34 of Securiitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 barred the jurisdiction of this forum , that the complainant has no enforceable cause of action, that there is no deficiency in service and that the complaint involves complex questions of law and facts. On merits the opposite parties No.1 to 3 have submitted that the complainant is a borrower and the opposite party No.4 is the guarantor of the House loan account with the Bank. The complainant has taken loan from the Bank after duly executing all the loan documents in favour of the bank and after mortgaging the property . It has been contended that the opposite party No.4 is the guarantor of the complainant and both of them are jointly and severally liable to repay the loan The opposite parties No.1 to 3 have denied the rest of the contents of the complaint being wrong. It has further been contended that the complainant has already taken whole of the loan amount of Rs..8,00,000/- which was duly disbursed to him at his request as per Loan Agreement duly executed by him . It has been denied that the statement of account was ever refused to him . It has been averred that the complainant became defaulter and miserably failed to make the repayment of the loan as agreed by him and his account became NPA. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua them .

3 The Opposite party No.4 has failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte.

4 The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverted the allegations made in the reply .

5 We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire case file. The grievance of the complainant is that a House loan to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/-in the month of November 2003 was sanctioned in his favour and at that time five blank cheques bearing No.175726 to 175730 were obtained from him by the opposite parties No.1 to 3 on the pretext that the same were to be given by the complainant to the Bank for the purpose of security. According to the complainant he issued one blank cheque and one self cheque to the opposite party No.2 in the presence of the opposite party No.4 but that cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- was withdrawn by the opposite party No.2 through some unknown person and the self cheque of Rs. 15,000/- was also withdrawn by the opposite party No.2 but the payments have been sent to him by the opposite party No.2 in the hands of the opposite party No.4 .The further case of the complainant is that he had withdrawn the loan amount by presenting cheque No 175731 dated 12-12-2003 in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- , cheque No.175732 dated 12-12-2003 for Rs.15,000/- , cheque No.175733 in the sum of Rs.5000/-, cheque No.175734 dated 26-12-2003 for Rs.65,500/-, cheque No.175736 dated 30-12-2003 in the sum of Rs 37,000/-, cheque no.175737 dated 6-2-2004 for Rs.25,000/- and cheque No.175738 dated 9-2-2004 in the sum of Rs.4600/-. However . when the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 for the withdrawal of the next instalment , he got surprised when the opposite party No.3 refused to permit the withdrawal on the ground that total sanctioned amount has already been disbursed to him. The grievance of the complainant is that he had only withdrawn a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and had not withdrawn remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and according to him this is a case of mis-appropriation of the amount in a very planned manner from his loan account by the opposite parties No.2 and 4 by presenting the cheques Nos.175725 to 175730 in the name of some unknown person who is either in the relation of the opposite party No.4 or under the influence of the opposite party No.2. Conversely the case of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 is that the complainant had fabricated a storey as an after thought . It has been denied that the Bank had kept any blank cheque of the complainant as security to be used in the eventuality of default in the repayment . It has also been denied that the cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- was withdrawn by a stranger The further case of the opposite party No.1 to 3 is that the loan instalments have been released to the supplier of the complainant/ complainant after he submitted the requisite bills, receipts , and other documents either through his account or through cheques . According to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 , the complainant had taken Rs.8,00,000/- as loan which was totally disbursed to him on his request as per loan agreement executed by him. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 had denied any mis- appropriation of the loan amount by the opposite party No.2. Further case of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 is that they have initiated proceedings against the complaint under Section 34 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 when the complainant defaulted in the repayment of the loan amount which he borrowed from the bank.

6 The careful scrutiny of the record reflects that the complaint has been filed by the complainant for adjudication in respect of complex questions of fact regarding mis-appropriation of huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- allegedly by the opposite party No.2 i.e. the Manager of the Bank and the opposite party No.4 guarantor of the complainant as according to the him , cheques bearing nos.175726 to 175730 were presented in the name of the unknown person who is either in the relation of the opposite party No.4 or under the influence of the opposite party No.2. The complainant himself has prayed that the matter regarding the amount withdrawn from his loan account be ordered to be investigated . These complex questions require elaborate evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses and thereafter a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such evidence is required. Moreover, the fact remains that factum of mis-appropriation would have to be established first and only then Forum under the Act can arrive at a finding of deficiency in service . However, in our opinion, this forum cannot decide such complex questions of mis- appropriation in a summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act. In the case titled Srikrishan Dass vs Dena Bank 2003(2) CPR-8 the complainant alleged withdrawal of the amount from his saving account on forged cheques and the Hon’ble State Commission , New Delhi had held that it involved complicated questions of facts which could not be decided in a consumer complaint . Relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:-


“It is no doubt true that the redressal agencies established under the Act , are vested with the power to examine the witnesses on oath and to order discovery and production of documents, but undoubtedly keeping in view the spirit of the Act, such powers are to be exercised in case where the issues involved are simple such as the defective quality of any goods purchased or any short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of a service which the respondent has contracted to perform for consideration. Even in such cases , if it appears to the concerned Forum that the issues raised cannot be determined without taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence, it is open to such redressal agency , established under the Act to decline to exercise jurisdiction and refer the party to his ordinary remedy by way of suit . In our above views , we stands fortified by two decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in cases M/S Special Machines Karnal vs Punjab National Bank and others 1(1991) CPJ-78 and B.K. Seth Managing Director Indu Video Films ( P ) Limited vs Chairman Delhi Finance Corporation and others III(1993) CPJ-327( NC).”

7. In a case titled Rajeshwar Prasad vs M/S BCL Financial Services Ltd 2002 NCJ-372( NC) it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that where the allegations of signing of blank cheques and blank papers have been raised , the complaint is not maintainable as it involved complex and complicated questions to be decided . The relevant portion of this order is reproduced herein below:-

“However State Commission was of the view that the case involved complicated and complex questions of law and facts inasmuch as allegations were made by the complainant having signed on blank papers and blank cheques etc. and that it was appropriate that parties be relegated to civil court of competent jurisdiction. Thus keeping all these circumstances in view , Sate Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner, yet leaving him to seek his remedy before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. We do not find any error in the reasoning of State Commission to take contrary view and we would therefore dismiss this revision petition.”


8 As discussed hereinabove , in the present case also complicated and complex questions are involved which require taking of elaborate oral and documentary evidence as well as cross-examination of the witnesses which cannot be effectively adjudicated upon in the summary proceedings under the Act. Moreover, in the present case , the complainant has raised plea that some blank cheques have been got signed from him and in view of the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case Rajeshwar Prasad supra , such question of signing blank cheques cannot be decided by this Forum. Therefore, in the entirety of the circumstances , the complaint is dismissed as no relief can be given to the complainant by this Forum under the Act. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil court for adjudication of his grievances if so advised and in such a case he can claim the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present proceedings, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for the said suit.
9 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

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

Dear Sir:

We have loan account with bank of india and every month the amount which was fixed
against our loan payment is deducted regularly.

Now it was observed that other than the fixed loan amount they are deducting some
more amount without any intimation to us. We have asked them about then they said
that itwas some lawyer fees and insurance charges where we have not intimated or not
given any permission to the bank to deduct the same.

We are having account for out benefit where our savings are budgeted and inthat such
thing will happen our all target for the month will loose.

Can you tell us that we can claimed against bank our refund which was deducted
without any intimation. We are not given permission to the bank to operate our
account but only to deduct the fixed amount against our housing loan which was
finalised between us.

we await your positive reply. my email id smadgeri@gmail.com

C.C. No. 5 /2009

Between

J. Viswanathan, S/o Late P.G.Jayavelu,

Aged 38 years, Hindu, residing at 3-383,

Santhapet Road, Murakambat Village,

Chittoor District.
….Complainant
And

1. The Branch Manager, Bank of India,

Prakasam High Road, Chittoor.

2. The Deputy General Manager, Bank of India,

P.T.I. Buildings, 1st Floor, 1-10-1199/2,

A.C.Guards, Hyderabad – 500 004, A.P.
….Opposite Parties

This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 25.01.2010 and upon perusing the complaint, written versions, affidavits, material documents and on hearing Sri V. Sreeramulu Naidu, counsel for the complainant, and Sri G.Saleem, counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER

DELIVERED BY Sri.K.Subramanyam Reddy, B.A., B.L., Male Member

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

This is a complaint filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to disburse the loan amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant, after deducting the margin money, to pay Rs. 6,385/- towards waiving of loan amount and Rs. 50,000/- towards damages.

The complainant submits that he is having shop by name Jyothi Radio Centre and Services and he received a training certificate from the Project Officer of District Rural Development Agency, Chittoor for repairing service of Radio and other Electrical appliances. He has 18 years experience in the said field.

The complainant submits that he has savings Bank account with the 1st opposite party for the last 15 years. He applied loan from the 1st opposite party/ bank under self-employment scheme for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in March-07. The Mandal Development Officer in Chittoor held Interview and selected the complainant as eligible candidate for receiving the loan amount from the 1st opposite party. Again the complainant was interviewed by the B.C Welfare Officer, Chittoor. Thereafter the District Collector and Chairman, District Backward Classes Services Co-operative Society Limited, Chittoor after interviewing the complainant issued proceedings dt. 24.04.2007 sanctioning the loan to the complainant. As per the proceedings of the District Collector and Chairman, District Backward Classes Services Co-operative Society Limited, Chittoor, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and submitted necessary reports, bills and photoes. The complainant is ready and willing to deposit Rs. 3,000/- as margin money, but the 1st opposite party purposefully was not receiving the amount and did not disburse the loan amount to the complainant. The complainant obtained loan of Rs. 25,000/- from third parties for higher rate of interest. As the 1st opposite party did not pay the loan amount to him, he suffered loss and closed the shop in October-08. The 1st opposite party deliberately and wantonly did not pay the loan amount to the complainant and it amounts to deficiency of service.
The complainant submits that he received loan waived certificate issued by Chief Minister of A.P and published on 01.11.2008 in VAARTHA Telugu News Paper in Chittoor that the complainant’s loan was waived off. In fact, the 1st opposite party has not released the loan amount to the complainant. After publication the complainant gave complaint to the District Collector, Chittoor against the 1st opposite party stating that the margin money of Rs. 6,385/- was waived off, without giving any loan by the 1st opposite party. If the 1st opposite party gave loan to the complainant he would have continued his shop. Under those circumstances the complainant filed this complaint to direct the 1st opposite party to disburse the loan amount of Rs. 30,000/- and pay Rs. 6,385/- towards waiving of the loan amount to the complainant besides damages of Rs. 50,000/- to him. The complaint may be allowed.

The 1st opposite party filed Written Version alleging that the complainant submitted his application through M.P.D.O for sanction of loan for developing Radio Repair shop in the name of Jyothi Radio Centre, but surprisingly B.C Corporation sanctioned the loan for electrical shop, which is contra to the application made by the complainant. Due to above different purposes the bank asked the applicant clarification and suitable amendment at B.C Corporation and submit his report to ascertain liability and feasibility for grounding. The bank asked the complainant to revise his unit and submit his report for grounding. But the complainant has not done so. As there are discrepancies in his application, the complainant’s loan is not disbursed and the same was conveyed to the B.C Corporation over phone. The complainant is not having firm idea, what business he has to do, whether Radio repair shop or electrical shop. Therefore the complainant’s loan is not disbursed. There is no deficiency on the part of this opposite party. The complaint may be dismissed.
The 2nd opposite party filed memo stating that this opposite party is adopting the written version filed by the 1st opposite party.

On the basis of the pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

1) Whether the 1st opposite party refused to grant loan without any reason and if so, whether they committed deficiency of service ?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to seek loan of Rs. 30,000/- after deducting the margin amount ?

3) Whether the complainant is entitled to claim Rs. 6,385/- towards waiver of the loan amount?

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

5) To what relief ?

The complainant filed Chief Affidavit of PW-1 and marked Ex.A1 to A18. The opposite parties filed Chief Affidavit of RW-1 and marked Ex.B1 to B7. The complainant and opposite parties filed their respective written arguments.


Points 1 to 4 :-

It is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for a loan of Rs. 30,000/- to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party/ bank agreed to sanction loan. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant was interviewed by the B.C. Welfare Officer, Chittoor as well as District Collector and Chairman, District Backward Classes Services Co-operative Society Limited, Chittoor and sanctioned margin money of Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant for establishing electrical shop. Ex.A3 are the proceedings of the District Collector sanctioning the margin money of Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant. In Ex.A3 it was stated that the banker shall release the margin money and subsidy amount only after remittance of 10% of Project cost by the beneficiary into his S.B. Account towards beneficial contribution as per B.C.A.P. Ex.A3 further shows that the Collector informed the Bank that the margin money was deposited with the Bank of India, Chittoor.

It is also admitted fact that the bank has not released the loan amount of Rs. 30,000/-, after deducting the margin money of Rs. 6,000/- and project of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant. According to the complainant he is willing to deposit the project cost of Rs. 3,000/-. But the bank refused to receive the amount and so he could not deposit the amount of Rs. 3,000/-. The complainant submits that the Bank refused to pay the loan amount of Rs. 21,000/- sanctioned to him under Ex.A3 on the ground that there is some discrepancy in the name of the unit mentioned in the application form Ex.B1. The complainant submits that in Ex.B1 the name of the unit is mentioned as Jyothi Radio Centre. The District Backward Classes Services Co-operative Society Limited, Chittoor, mentioned in the beneficials list that the complainant was having electrical shop and the District Collector in his proceedings Ex.A3 sanctioned the loan for electrical shop. It is on this ground the bank refused to sanction the loan.

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that Radio Electrical Shop and other electrical appliances is also electrical shop and the same was mentioned by the B.C.Welfare Officer, Chittoor in Ex.B2. But the Bank interpreted the same in a different manner and refused to sanction the loan to the complainant. The complainant reported the matter to the District Collector and B.C Welfare Officer, Chittoor against the 1st opposite party for not sanctioning the loan to him. In spite of it the bank has not sanctioned the loan to the complainant and the complainant could not run the business and he closed his business and incurred heavy loss. Therefore the 1st opposite party committed deficiency of service.



The learned counsel for the 1st opposite party contends that the 1st opposite party presented the application form Ex.B1 to sanction the loan for radio repair shop in the name of Jyothi Radio Centre. Whereas the B.C Corporation sanctioned the loan for electrical shop, which is a different unit for different purposes. The Bank asked the complainant to clarify the discrepancy in the application from B.C. Corporation and file his reports and documents regarding the unit for grounding the same. But the complainant has not taken any steps and the bank has not released the amount under the loan account to the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the bank.



The learned counsel for the 1st opposite party further submits that the bank informed the complainant in Ex.B7 dt. 06.07.07 to meet the 1st opposite party to discuss viability and feasibility of the unit. In Ex.B6 dt. 28.11.2007 the bank further informed the complainant that his application was not having any details of his project. In spite of Ex.B6 and B7 the complainant has not taken interest in submitting his project report and there is no deficiency of service on the part of 1st opposite party. The complaint is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed.


PW-1 stated that he approached the 1st opposite party personally several times and submitted necessary reports, bills and photos to the 1st opposite party. As per the instructions from the 1st opposite party he is ready to deposit the amount of Rs. 3,000/- in his S.B account as margin money for sanctioning the loan amount to him. But the 1st opposite party purposefully one way or other postponed the matter.

PW-1 further stated that he continuously approached the 1st opposite party for about one year, but the 1st opposite party did not pay the loan amount to him. He took loan from private parties of Rs. 25,000/- at higher rate of interest, since the 1st opposite party has not sanctioned the loan to him, he closed his shop during month of October-08.



RW-1 is the Branch Manager of 1st opposite party, he stated that the complainant submitted his application for sanctioning of loan for radio repair shop, but surprisingly the B.C Corporation sanctioned the loan for electrical shop, which is contra to the application made by the complainant. Due to above different purposes of sanctioning loan the bank asked the applicant clarification and suitable amendment from B.C Corporation. The complainant never acted and kept on asking the bank for disbursement of corporation margin money only without asking for bank loan. The Bank asked the complainant to revise his unit and submit his report for grounding. As there is a discrepancy in his application the complainant’s loan is not disbursed. The complainant is not having any good record, he has not satisfied the bank officials about his unit.

RW-1 further stated that the bank officials gave report that the complainant has been doing radio repair work and he is not running electrical shop. Therefore the complainant’s loan is not sanctioned.

The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the 1st opposite party has not informed the complainant to get clarification regarding radio repair shop mentioned in the application form. The 1st opposite party has not proved that Ex.B6 and B7 were served on the complainant. The complainant did not receive Ex.B6 & B7. Further Radio repair shop is also an electrical shop within the knowledge of the complainant. But the bank unnecessarily raised dispute and refused to sanction the loan.

The 1st opposite party/ bank ought to have realized the intention of the Government in helping the unemployed youth under self employment scheme. The heading in Ex.B1 speaks the same. In such a case the bank ought to have properly advised the innocent illiterate beneficiaries under the self employment scheme of the Government. The Government sponsored the scheme to help the helpless persons to provide some beneficial assistance for their livelihood. With that object the Government sanctioned the loan of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant. The Government made it clear with letter Ex.B2 to the banks that the scheme should be implemented with 100% success. Ex.B2 is the letter from the Executive Director, District Backward Classes Services Co-operative Society Limited, Chittoor to the Banks. In the said letter it was stated that the Bank should ensure 100% grounding of the units, for which sanctions are issued. When the Government deposited margin money with the bank there is no option for the bank to refuse to release amount to the complainant. The bank has to implement the scheme of the Government. It cannot put hurdles in releasing the loan amount. The bank should be liberal as indicated in Ex.B2 and implement the scheme of the Government and it should not act against the interest of the Government towards its people.

The learned counsel for the 1st opposite party relied on a decision reported in 2005(3) – C.P.R – 338 – in Midnapore Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd., Vs Sadhan Kumar Chowdhury - Wherein their lordships held as follows :-

“Thus there is no denying the fact that due to fluctuation in the choice of the complainant and repeated shifting of the nature of his loan application, a considerable period was wasted and for this the Appellant/ Bank cannot by any means be blamed. In this connection, the argument advanced by the Appellant appears to be quite justified that a proposal for sanction of loan for a particular project cannot be changed overnight into an other project even though the amount of loan to be sanctioned for the new project is less than the loan originally applied for because each project has got separate norms to be fulfilled by the loanee before a loan case is considered by the Bank. What is more, a part of the margin money that was to be deposited by the applicant himself out of his own pocket amounting to Rs. 66,000/- appears to have been actually deposited by him on 20.06.2001 (Vide Annexure-H). It should be noted that here the margin money payable by the Government was actually released almost two years after the loan was sanctioned and the remaining portion of the margin money that was to be contributed by the applicant himself was actually deposited by him after about three years. We cannot pay a deaf ear to the appellant’s Ld. Advocate when he contends that this delayed deposit of margin money went a long way in compelling the Bank to postpone the release of the loan for a considerable time”.


The facts of the above case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the above case their lordships held that there is change of project and the margin money was deposited by Government after two years and the applicant paid remaining margin amount after 3 years. In this case, according to the complainant the radio repair shop is also a electrical shop and the Government deposited the margin money immediately and the complainant was prepared to pay the project cost of Rs. 3,000/-. But the 1st opposite party/ bank refused to receive Rs. 3,000/- from the complainant and insisted the complainant to get clarification regarding the name of the unit in Ex.B1. In the case of poor persons under self-employment scheme the bank should have understood the object of the scheme of the Government. The Government also stressed the banks the importance of the scheme in its letter Ex.B2 and directed the bank to ensure 100% of grounding unit. Therefore the bank ought to have released the amount in view of the letter Ex.B2 addressed by Backward Class Services Co-Operative Society Ltd., Chittoor. In spite of sanctioning the loan by the Government and deposit of margin money the bank has not paid the loan amount to the complainant. Ex.A1 shows that the Government waived loan amount of Rs. 6,385/- it shows that the Government was of the opinion that the complainant was paid loan amount and waived a loan amount of Rs. 6,385/- under Ex.A1. The learned counsel for the 1st opposite party/ bank submits that the bank has not refused to pay the loan amount. It has asked the complainant to correct the discrepancy in the application form Ex.B1. In the light of Ex.B2 instructions to the bank and Ex.A1, the bank is directed to grant loan amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant after collecting the margin amount of Rs. 3,000/- from him.

Points 1 to 4 are answered accordingly.



Point No.5:-

In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties to grant loan amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousands only) to the complainant, after collecting the margin amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousands only) from the complainant, with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).

I would like to bring to your knowledge that I have been cheated by a forged cheque amounting Rs. 2, 45,000 (Two Lakhs forty- five thousand).
I wanted to buy a house and requested my brother and sister to lend me money which they did, and 000410110000184, Ramdas Nayak Marg, Bandra (w) branch.
To enquire about getting a loan, I contacted Just Dial Service (022-69999999) and they informed me as well as their clients that I was looking for a home loan. Different financing agents started calling me, one of them was Mr. Aditya (Cell # 98676-25922), he said that he could arrange a finance loan in 15bdays and asked me to provide photocopies of my bank statement, pan card, salary slip, election I-card and ration card etc, which was provided to him on 30th of November 2010, he called and said that he needs a cheque as processing fees for Kotak Mahindra Bank, amounting Rs. 1109 (One thousand, one hundred and nine). On 30th of November 2010, he along with another man name (as he told us) Mr. Sameer (Cell # 98922-08928) and collected a cheque #344608 drawn on Bank of India, Ramdas Nayak Marg, Bandra (w) branch, in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank.
On 4th of December 2010, mu dad called Mr. Aditya and Mr. Sameer to inform them that the papers related to the property have come but neither of them answered the phone that aroused our suspicion. So o 9th December 2010, we went to the address which they had given us as Kotak Mahindra Finance Company situated at Dani Park Compound in Kalina. There, we found out that nobody with the name of Aditya or Sameer is working there, so on 10th December 2010, I went to my bank & learnt that the cheque amounting Rs. 1109 (One thousand, one hundred and nine) in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank was changed to some Nimi. S. Agarwal is how her name appeared on the cheque instead of Kotak Mahindra Bank and how an amount of Rs. 1109 was changed to Rs.2, 45,000. It’s simply a matter of forgery.
I request you to kindly take the needful action against these unlawful culprits and bring them to justice.

Only people who cheat others in the name of investments for higher returns and then shy away when things do not work think such stupid things of SBI closing down.
If SBI closes down all your illegal income would be confiscated...very simple Mr Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma.