Sri Rama Chandra Das, President - The complaint filed this complaint under Sec 12 of C.P Act with prayer to waive disbursed loan of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest in her account No.1626300002127, refund or issue of Fixed deposit certificate of Rs.2,80,000/- and Rs.50,000/- , to pay Rs.7,00,000/- with interest towards construction of house, to pay Rs.4,48,000/- i. e. 33% of subsidy on sanctioned amounts, to pay Rs.10,000/- for execution of lease deed, Rs.1,00.000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost from the OP.
The complainant case is that in the year 2011 she wanted to run a broiler form for her livelihood and was selected by KSK, Nayagarh for establishment of farm. She took plot No.1073 on lease from her husband vide lease deed No.11371102213 dated 07.5.2011 which is recorded in her deceased father-in-Law Sudarsan Jena . The District Agricultural Officer forwarded the project proposal to the OP for sanction of loan amounting to Rs.13.60 lakh with 33% subsidy vide letter No.952 date 9.5.2011. The OP went to the spot, verified the landed documents and after proper inquiry on 12.7.2011 the OP sanctioned loan vide account No.1626300002127 in her favour and alternatively on direction she deposited Rs.2,80.000/- and Rs.50,000/- in fixed account for disbursement of the loan but the OP did not issue the receipts ;and assured to issue after completion of the project. The OP on 14.7.2011 ;and on 15.7.2011 disbursed total loan of Rs.4,00,000/-in her favour and assured to disburse the rest after short period and proceed with construction work. The complainant constructed houses up to lintel level spending Rs.7,00,000/- towards sends, bricks, cements, rods, water and labour charges including transportation. Till January 2013 the complainant rushed to the OP for disbursement rest loan amount to complete the project but on 31.1.2013 the OP denied to disburse the rest amount stating the land is joint property and the present loan account is Rs.4,60,185.70 paise. The complainant on 20.1.14 went to the OP for disbursement of loan amount as the joint property has been partitioned between legal heirs and she is lease holder of the property but the OP denied to disburse the loan amounts . The complainant also demanded for fixed deposit receipts and requested to wave the loan disbursed amount, demanded the amounts spent in construction of house and subsidy amounts . The OP assured to comply the demand after due intimation from Head Office but till now the OP is silent. The complainant though complied the requirements of the OP but the OP with malafide intention did not disburse the rest for which the half constructed house over plot No.1073 has been totally damaged. Due to deficiency of service of the OP her project could not be completed and sustain loss and mental agony. Hence she filed this complaint with the prayer mentioned above.
The OP appeared on 21.11.2014 took time to file written version on 28.11.2014 but on that date he remained absent, did not file the written version so was set ex-parte on that date.
The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and relied on the xerox copies of documents filed on 25.10.2014 and 24.12.2014. The complainant also relied on a citation of Hon'ble National Commission decided in R.P No.2423/2005 Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Vs Bank of Borada and another pronounced on 2.4.2009.
The complainant was selected by Krushi Sahayak Kendra, Nayagarh for establishment of Broiler Farm for the year 2011-12. Her project proposal was for Rs.13.60 lakh and the same was forwarded by Dist. Agricultural Officer, Nayagarh to the OP vide letter No.951 dated 09.5.2011 for sanction of loan with subsidy 33% on capital investment which will be released by APICOL, Odisha, Bhubaneswar subject to availability of subsidy, with intimation to the complainant vied Letter No.952 dated 09.5.2011. On 07.5.2011 one Gokulananda Jena the husband of the complainant executed a lease deed No.1371102258 in respect of Khata No.252 plot No.1073 Area AO 28d and plot No.841 area AO.21d totaling AO.49d from his exclusive possession which he inherited as legal heir from his grand father Sudarson Jena. The OP Bank on receipt of letter from DAO, Nayagarh with reference to the complainants loan application dated 05.5.2011 for establishment of Broiler Farm intimated to the complainant regarding terms and condition on 12.7.2011 with request to sign on the duplicate copy if she accept the terms and condition. The complainant and her husband accepted the terms and condition as borrower and guarantor respectively on 12.7.2011. The OP Bank disbursed Rs.2,00,000/- in 1st phase on 15.7.2011 and Rs.2,00,000/- in 2nd phase on 25.8.2011 in the existing bank S.B. account No.1626010010663 of the complainant . The complainant submits she has deposited Rs.2,80-,000/- and Rs.50,000/- in fixed deposit on 12.7.2011 for disbursement of said loan but no receipt was granted by the OP Bank. As per the OPs letter the margin (own contribution) Rs.3,60,000/- shall be contributed by the borrower and the over all limit is Rs.10,00,000/-(Ten lakhs) only. The non issuance of fixed deposit receipt to the complainant by the OP sounds unreasonable as because the complainant must not have deposited that Rs.3,30,000 /- with the OP and OP can not receive that much amount without granting the receipt and fixed deposit certificate.
The OP had disbursed Rs.4,00,000/- in two phase in favour of the complainant . The letter dated 31.1.2013 of the OP addressed to the complainant reveals that the complainant was sanctioned loan in Account No.1626300002127 for loan limit of Rs.10 lakhs. They had disbursed loan component for construction of shed and it has been done. On 28.9.2011 the OP received a pleader l;notice on 28.9.2011 on behalf of complainant cousin Bharat Ch. Jena regarding share in the Joint family properly for which the OP could not proceed further in poultry project. The OP visited the project site on 07.11.2012 and requested to submit the registered partition deed for further finance to complete the project. The OP further requested to submit the Registered partition Deed, site map of her share of land as per the partition Deed for their action with intimating that outstanding balance in the loan account a s on 31.1.2013 is Rs.4,60,185.70 paise.
The complainant without submitting the above requirements before the OP , alleges she on 20.1.2014 approached the OP for disbursement of rest sanctioned amounts but in vein. The complainant did not file the registered partition deed made in favour of her husband to peruse if her husband (the lessor) was in exclusive possession of the property leased out in her favour. This is the sole reason as to why the Op perhaps did not disburse the rest loan amount. As per term and condition in sub clause 9(J) the Bank may add, modify or substitute any terms in future without prior consent from the borrower. Since the OP Bank put a condition in requesting the complainant to produce the Registered partition deed with site map, it was on the part of the complainant to fulfill the condition. In 2002 (3) CPR 5 (NC) M/s Sree Kanak Durga Hatcharies Pvt Ltd Vs S.B.I , it is held “ It is for the financial institution really to decide whether to as not to enhanced the facilities or even to sanction the loan. There will also be no deficiency of service if the loan is sanctioned by the bank subject to certain conditions which remain unfulfilled on account where of loan is not disbursed ”
Due to the lacuna of the complainant in furnishing the Registered partition deed with site map, the OP can not br held liable for deficiency of service.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission where there was delay in disbursing the loan. But in the instant case the some portion of loan has been disbursed and when a dispute arose regarding the premises the OP Bank asked for the Regd. Partition Deed with site map for its action in order to disburse further loan. Hence the cited decision of the complainant is not helpful to her.
The complainant submits she is a consumer and she was selected to establish a project of Broiler Farm to the tune of Rs.13.06 lakhs for Broiler Farm for her self employment. obtaining loan of Rs.13.60 lakh for Broiler Farm seems to be a huge project can not be for self employment but for commercial purpose In 2011(3) CPR 194 (NC) Kiran Rai Khatri Vs Dakshin Haryan Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd the Hon'ble National commission held “ If the electricity supply connection has been obtained for the purpose of running a pouttry Farm, then it is a connection obtained for commercial purpose and so the complainant was not a
“ Consumer ” with the meaning of Sec-2(1)(d)(II) of the Act 1986. In the instant case the complainant establishing a poultry Farm so she can not be treated as consumer.
The complainant has come to this Forum regarding waiving her loan amount . In 2013(i)CPR 151 (NC) M/s M.I. Ply wood Industries Vs Senior Branch Manager It is held “ Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint concerning loan matter ” . In 2013(I) CPR 298(NC) Shiva Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd & others it is held “ Consumer commissions can not entertain loan matters ”
Hence from the above discussion we came to the conclusion that the complaint is not maintainable and order that ;
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed on ex-parte without cost..
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 12th January, 2015.
