DATE OF FILING :12/02/16
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of June 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO. 51/2016
Between
Complainant : 1 . Biju, S/o Jacob,
Valayil House,
Vazhithala Kara, Vazhithala,
Idukki district.
2 . Jomon, S/o Jacob,
Valayil House,
Vazhithala Kara, Vazhithala,
Idukki district.
3 . Jaimol, D/o Jacob,
Valayil House,
Vazhithala Kara, Vazhithala,
Idukki district.
(All of them by Adv: Shiji Joseph)
And
Opposite Party : The Branch Manager,
The State Bank of Travancore,
Vazhithala.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that,
The complainants are brothers and sister. On 27/02/13, complainants availed 3 agricultural gold loans from the opposite party bank, and the loan was closed in the year 2014. At the time of closing the loan opposite party bank given subsidy of Rs.14618/-, Rs.14818/- and Rs.10870/- to the complainants 1 to 3 respectively. While so, on 05/12/15 the complainants received notices from the opposite party bank demanding to repay the subsidy granted to them, on the reason that at the time of granting loans, the complainants were failed to produce necessary documents to show that they are agriculturists. As demanded by the opposite party the complainants 1 to 3
(cont.....2)
-2-
produced basic tax receipts and lease agreement of their property to the opposite party. The complainants availed loans for pineapple cultivation.
The complainants further averred that at the time of closing the loans, the opposite party has not raised any objection in granting subsidy till the issuance of notice on 05/12/15. Hence demand of repayment of subsidy amount which was legally entitled to the complainants is illegal and their demand caused much mental agony to the complainants 1 to 3. Hence alleging deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, complainants jointly filed this petition for granting reliefs such as to direct the opposite party bank to withdraw from realising the subsidy amount from the opposite party and direct the opposite party to pay compensation and cost.
Upon notice opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version. In their version opposite party denied the production of documents at the time of sanctioning the loan. The first complainant availed loan on 27/02/13. He ought to have produced the basic tax of receipt of 3 acres. But he produced tax receipt for 1.5 acres and did not produce any lease deed as alleged. The second complainant produced tax receipt of 1 acre and did not produce any lease agreement. At the same time he filed affidavit stating that he was cultivating in 3 acres. Likewise, the third complainant produced tax receipt of 50 cents and did not produce any lease deed. All these complainants promised the opposite party bank that, they will submit sufficient documents within one week, but failed to do so. Opposite party further contented that, complainants are not eligible for subsidy as they have not produced documents proportionate to the loan availed. All the complainants approached the bank for urgent need of money, and the opposite party bank sanctioned the loan on the basis of the declaration duly signed by them. But instead of repeated remainders they failed to produce the documents, which make them eligible for interest subvention. As the complainants have failed to produce the required documents at the right time, the opposite party was directed to send notices for them as per RBI audit direction. Considering the above facts, it could be seen that loss of subsidy by the complainants are self imposed for they cannot cast any liability upon the opposite party. Hence there is no defects in service from the part of the opposite party.
(cont.....3)
-3-
Evidence adduced by the complainants by way of proof affidavit of first complainant. The first complainant was examined as PW1 and notice received by the complainants from the bank dated 05/12/15 marked as Ext.P1(s).
From the opposite party side, the Manager of the opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext.R1 to Ext.R8 were marked. Ext.R1 is the declaration of first complainant, Ext.R2 is the declaration of the second complainant, Ext.R3 is the declaration of third complainant, Ext.R4 is the copy of Agriculturel Finance Circulation, Ext.R5 is the CIBIL information report, Ext.R6 is the Agricultural Gold Loan Guidelines, Ext.R7 is the copy of Agriculturel Finance revised scale of Finance Circular, Ext.R8 is the AD cards.
Heard both sides,
The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The Point:- We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration for the arguments advanced before us.
It is an admitted fact that the complainants 1, 2 and 3 availed Agricultural Gold Loan from the opposite party bank on 27/02/13. This loan was granted @ 7% interest per annum and it is strictly for agricultural purpose. This scheme is launched by the Central Government in order to promote agriculture and to help farmers. The terms and conditions of this loan is that, the borrower who repaying the loan within one year, without any default will get an interest subsidy of 3%.
In the instant case, on perusal of records it is seen that, the loan was sanctioned to the complainants 1, 2 and 3 are in the category of Agricultural Gold Loan after fully convincing that, they are farmers. All the complainants repaid the loan promptly as per the guidelines of this scheme, and the opposite party bank granted interest subvention to all the complainants.
(cont.....4)
-4-
As per Ext.R1 to Ext.R3 opposite party bank received some documents of agricultural land from the complainants 1, 2 and 3 and granted the loan. In the back side of this documents the staff of the opposite party bank endorsed that the party promised to produce remaining documents within one week. On going through this documents we can see that the loan is sanctioned, subject to the production of some documents and as per other records it is clear that all the complainants repaid the loan within one year. The opposite party bank granted interest subvention to all these complainants in the year 2014, after fully convincing that all the complainants are complied the guidelines of this type of loans. It is the bounden duty of the opposite party bank to verify the loan account and records before granting subsidy to the borrowers. As per the version of the opposite party the error in granting the subsidy to ineligible person was found out by the RBI auditors in the year 2015. Till that time opposite party was unaware of this matter. More over opposite party failed to produce any record to convince the Forum that, whether the complainants had executed any written undertaking for production of relevant documents at the time of sanctioning the loan, as the opposite party contented in their reply version. For substantiating their version opposite party produced Ext.R1 to Ext.R3 declaration. In Ext.R1 to Ext.R3 it specifically stated that after recording property details the loan was granted, subject to the production of other documents within one week. This endorsement is done by the bank authority themselves. But no further evidence is produced by the opposite party to convince that whether they demanded the documents after the promised period. As per Ext.P1(s) it is seen that the opposite party bank demanded the production of documents from the complainants, was only on 05/12/15, ie, after nearly two years of closing the loan by the complainants. It is the primary duty of each staff of the opposite party bank before sanctioning such loans should follow the guidelines and verify the documents.
Hence the customers are no way liable to compensate the damage of the bank which happened or occurred only due to the irresponsible act of the opposite party bank's staff. Hence demanding the refund of subsidy amount which was legally granted to the complainants is on the basis of some baseless ground is unjust and is gross deficiency in service .
(cont.....5)
-5-
On the basis of above discussion, the complaint allowed. Opposite party bank is directed to withdraw from initiating recovery steps against the complainants as per the Ext.P1(s) notice dated 05/12/15. No order to cost.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2018.
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 -Biju Jacob
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Lissy Sleeba
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1(s) - Notice received by the complainants from the bank dated 05/12/15
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - The declaration of first complainant
Ext.R2 - The declaration of the second complainant
Ext.R3 - The declaration of third complainant
Ext.R4 - The copy of Agriculturel Finance Circulation
Ext.R5 - The CIBIL information report
Ext.R6 - The Agricultural Gold Loan Guidelines
Ext.R7 - The copy of Agriculturel Finance revised scale of Finance Circular
Ext.R8 - The AD cards.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
