BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Friday, 17th day of March 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 73/ 2016
Bedaduru Subbarayudu, S/o Siddappa,
Hindu, aged about 62 years, Farmer,
Residing at D.No. 2/236-B,
Nagarajupet, Kadapa. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,
Pulivendula Road, Kondapuram (R.S),
Kadapa District. ….. Opposite party
This complaint coming for final hearing on 10-3-2017 in the presence of Sri Y.V. Seshaiah, Advocate for complainant and Sri S.S.D. Ramaswamy, Advocate for Opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite party to extend the balance A.P. debt waiver to the extent of Rs. 48,192/-, to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards damages and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant is farmer having agricultural land of Ac. 4.80 cents in survey No. 285/2 at Yanamala Chintala Village. He obtained crop loan of Rs. 70,000/- on 10-1-2013 from Opposite party by pledging gold weighing net weight 34 grams as security for loan. The loan account is 32761327864. The opposite party assured the Complainant subsidy amount will be extended to the crop loan. The Complainant remitted the amount of Rs. 18,000/- on 11-2-2015 and Rs. 45,684/- on 22-6-2015 towards loan amount and cleared the crop loan. The Opposite party has extended debt waiver to an extent of Rs. 24,096-47 Ps to the Complainant on 18-4-2015 for the land to the extent of Ac. 1.60 cents of the crop of groundnut but not extended to the remaining Ac. 3.20 cents. Therefore, the Complainant has been deprived waiver of debt to the extent of Rs. 48,192/- from O.P. bank. A legal notice was given on 6-9-2016 to pay an amount of Rs. 48,192/- towards A.P. debt waiver as per calculation of bank, Kondapuram but no reply was received. Hence, the compliant for the above reliefs.
3. Opposite party filed counter / written version denying the allegations but admitting giving the loan by pledging gold jewels as pleaded and paying amounts as pleaded by the Complainant. It is further averred that at the time of sanction of gold loan Complainant informed the bank that he has been raising crop in respect of Ac. 1.60 cents only and has produced photocopy of his pattadar passbook. Hence, the opposite party shown the extent of land Ac. 1.60 cents relating to the Complainant and the said information provided to the government. Accordingly, the government has waived Rs. 24,096-47Ps in respect of gold loan of the Complainant. This Opposite party has not at all extended A.P. waiver scheme and it was launched by the Government in the month of August 2014 after it came to the power in the elections. The Opposite party credited an amount of Rs. 24,096-47ps in to gold loan account of Complainant on 8-4-2015. The Complainant closed the gold loan on 22-6-2015 by paying balance outstanding amount of Rs. 45,684/- together with interest and the O.P. bank returned the gold ornaments to the Complainant and closed the gold loan account and the Complainant acknowledged receipt of the gold ornaments on 22-6-2015. Had the Complainant informed this O.P. before closure of gold loan this O.P. would have made correspondence with the government to pay balance amount of debt waiver. But he kept quiet for more than one year and approached the bank on 19-7-2016 and the bank furnished statement of account to the Complainant as he closed the loan. The question of debt waiver of Rs. 48,192/- to the Complainant does not arise as this O.P. bank is not competent to waive the debt. If at all he is entitled he has to claim the same from Government. There is no deficiency in service as pleaded by the Complainant and this O.P. is not liable to pay Rs. 48,192/- or other claims towards damages and costs and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party as claimed by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed against the Opposite party?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A11 documents are marked. On behalf of the Opposite party Ex. B1 gold loan ledger of Complainant is marked.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the pleadings, documents filed by the parties.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2. Learned counsel for Complainant contended that the Complainant has Ac. 4.80 cents of land but debt waiver was given to an extent of Ac. 1.60 cents to the tune of Rs. 24,096/- only and he is entitled for another Rs. 48,192/- but in spite of notice under Ex. A9 the O.P. bank has not paid the same. Thus there is deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for Opposite party contended the debt waiver has not been given by the Opposite party but it is the scheme proposed and granted by the Government and whatever government sanctioned considering the eligibility of the waiver of the farmers the bank wound extent to that amount only and as per Ex. A4 government debt relief the Complainant was eligible only for Ac. 1.60 cents to the tune of Rs. 24,096/- and the same was credited to his account as waiver of debt and the remaining outstanding amount has been paid by the Complainant and closed the gold loan by 22-6-2016 and received his gold ornaments. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is filed against this O.P. unnecessarily and O.P. is not liable to pay any amounts to the Complainant and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. There is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the Opposite party to hold that there is no merit in this case, no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party and Opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. In this case there is no dispute that the Complainant is a farmer and he approached Opposite party and obtained gold loan of Rs. 70,000/- on 10-1-2103 by pledging his gold ornaments of net weight 34 grams and Government waived crop loan to the extent of Rs. 24,096/- for the crop raised in Ac. 1.60 cents. It is further not in dispute that the Complainant paid total outstanding amount of Rs. 45,684/- and discharged gold loan on 22-6-2015 and taken back his ornaments by closing the account.
11. According to the Complainant he is eligible for waiver of total debt as he has Ac. 4.80 cents of land and the waiver was given only to an extent of Ac. 1.60 cents. Therefore, the bank is liable to pay Rs. 48,192/- to him. But the above contention cannot be upheld as the debt waiver was not given by O.P. bank. The debt scheme was launched by the government, even as per Ex. A4 filed by the Complainant. A perusal of Ex. A4 debt relief of Government of A.P shows that in Phase – I and Phase – II the Complainant was eligible for debt waiver of Rs. 24,096/- for Ac. 1.60 cents of groundnut crop raised by him. Therefore, the O.P. bank as per Ex. A5 bank statement credited Rs. 24,096/- to his account on 18-4-2015. A further perusal of Ex. A5 shows the Complainant discharged the gold loan account by paying Rs. 45,684/- due and closed the same. So the waiver debt cannot be automatically extended by the bank as it was the scheme of Government. If government sanctioned the waiver amount then the O.P. would credit the sanctioned amount to the account of beneficiary i.e. the Complainant. In this case since, the government sanctioned only Rs. 24,096/- for Ac. 1.60 cents for which he is eligible under debt waiver scheme the same was credited to the account of Complainant by the O.P. bank. Had the bank waived the total debt the bank would have credited the same and waived the loan. Knowing pretty well about the position of liability of Complainant regarding waiver of debt he paid the outstanding balance amount of Rs. 45,684/- and discharged the gold loan on 22-6-2015 and closed the account and he received the gold ornaments by acknowledging the same. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P bank in connection of handling the account of Complainant and Complainant is not entitled from the O.P bank for Rs. 48,192/- under A.P. debt waiver and also Rs. 25,000/- towards damages and costs of Rs. 3,000/- as claimed from Opposite party. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered against the Complainant.
12. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 17th day of March 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of Pattadar pass book No. 71 of the Complainant dt. 1-9-2015.
Ex. A2 P/c of aadhar card No. 470069747619 of the Complainant
Ex. A3 P/c of crop / Jewell Gold loan No. 32761327864, LF No. 37/130, dt. 10-1-2013 of the Complainant of SBI, Kondapuram and statement of account.
Ex. A4 P/c of A.P. debt waiver extract particulars of SBI Kondapuram in respect of the ocvm visitor No. 521488, dt. 18-4-2015.
Ex. A5 P/c of statement of account of SBI Kondapuram in account No. 32761327864 of Complainant in respect of his crop loan dt. 19-7-2016.
Ex. A6 P/c of letter dt. 21-7-2016 sent to the O.P. under RTI Act 2005.
Ex. A7 Postal receipts No. 48673125IN, dt. 23-7-2016.
Ex. A8 P/c of online status information in R.No. 48673128IN, dt. 29-8-2016 i.e. the R.P.A.D letter delivered tgo the O.P. on 25-7-2016.
Ex. A9 P/c of legal notice copy dt. 6-9-2016 issued to the Opposite party.
Ex. A10 Postal receipt No. 5551701751, dt. 6-9-2016.
Ex. A11 P/c of online status information in 555170175IN i.e. the RPAD letter delivered to the O.P. on 7-9-2016.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties : -
Ex. B1 P/c of gold loan ledger of the Complainant.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri Y.V. Seshaiah, Advocate for Complainant
2) Sri S.S.D. Ramaswamy, Advocate for opposite party.
B.V.P
