Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1. This is an appeal filed by the original complainant feeling aggrieved by an order dated 31/12/2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Wardha, by which the consumer complaint No.60/2009 has been partly allowed. The learned advocate of the appellant/original complainant filed written notes of arguments alongwith application seeking permission to file the same. We already heard advocate of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. No one appeared for respondent No.3 at the time of final hearing. The appellant’s advocate is permitted to file its written notes of arguments. We have perused the entire record and proceedings of this appeal.
2. The aforesaid consumer complaint No.60/2009 was filed by the appellant against the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 herein seeking the following reliefs.
i) The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 be directed to pay the appellant compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss sustained by the appellant due to keeping his land fallow because of not granting additional loan of Rs.1,50,000/- by the respondent No.1 though the appellant had completed all the formalities for granting said loan.
ii) The respondent be directed to pay further compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant towards the decrease in the yield of the crop caused of respondents by not granting loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to him.
iii) Further compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment and also to pay him expenses of Rs.2,500/- incurred by him towards fees of an advocate Mr.H.L.Deshmukh for obtaining search report from him and also to pay him Rs.325/- towards the fees deposited with the Assistant Deputy Registrar, Wardha for obtaining search report.
3. The said complaint was resisted by the respondent by filing reply. Their main submission was that for granting additional loan no objection certificates from other banks were demanded from appellant. But he did not produce the same and hence loan was not sanctioned to him. Therefore they had requested that complaint may be dismissed.
4. The District Consumer Forum below after hearing both parties and considering evidence brought on record passed impugned order and thereby partly allowed the complaint directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay to the appellant Rs.9,000/- by way of compensation towards deficient service provided to him. The Forum also directed respondent No.3 and 4 to pay to the appellant compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards deficient service provided by them to the appellant. The Forum also directed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- and respondent Nos.3 and 4 to pay further litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the appellant. The Forum also directed that the above order be complied with by the respondents within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the said order and in case of default the said amounts will carry interest @ 10% P.A. from the date of that order till realization of the said amounts by the appellant. Thus feeling aggrieved, the original complainant has filed this appeal.
5. The learned advocate of the appellant in her written notes of arguments dated 28/01/2019 made submission in brief is as under.
The appellant wanted additional loan from respondent No.1. But respondent demanded from him again “No Objection Certificate” as well as the title verification report and incidental expenditure of mortgaged deed and stamp duties though the same were already submitted to the respondent No.1 while obtaining previous loan from it. The appellant had brought to the notice of respondent No.1 that all these formalities were already completed while obtaining previous crop loan and the same documentation may be considered for renewal of the case for additional loan. But respondent No.1 communicated on 23/06/2009 that the request for additional loan is refused. Hence the appellant suffered loss of Rs.1,50,000/- and the Forum below has not considered properly the aforesaid material facts and circumstances and passed the erroneous order. Therefore it is requested by the learned advocate of the appellant that impugned order may be modified by enhancing the compensation.
6. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that there is no merit in this appeal and hence it may be dismissed.
7. We find that the appellant is not entitled to claim any such compensation from non grant of loan, since it was the discretion of the respondent to demand fresh documents for the purpose of granting additional loan. There was no agreement in between both parties showing that for grant of additional loan, no document will be demanded by the respondent No.1.
8. We are also find that there is no evidence to show that the appellant suffered such loss, for which such a huge compensation is claimed in prayer clause of the complaint. Hence we are of the considered view that the Forum below has rightly not granted such huge compensation to the appellant as claimed in the complaint. We find no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.
// ORDER //
- The appeal is dismissed.
- No order as to costs in this appeal.
- The Copy of this order be furnished to both parties free of cost..
