order dated 13/03/2009<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> M.R. DEVAPPA, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Briefly stated the case of the complainant is as follows;<br /> <br /> 1. That the complainant is a small coffee grower, owning coffee estate of 5 acres in Sy.No.259/5 at West Nemmale Village and also having CRC in respect of that land. <br /> <br /> 2. That he has been a permanent customer in the opposite party bank and in the year 2005 he obtained agricultural loan of Rs.80,000/- through CRC and RTC and was paying interest regularly and he had cordial relationship with the staff of the opposite party bank and in the year May 2007 the then Manager Madhusudan and the attender of the bank came to his house and threatened the complainant to clear the loan and being afraid of the threat he pledged the ornaments of his wife and repaid the loan, and at that time the Manager and attender received a bribe of Rs.2,000/-. <br /> <br /> 3. That having come to know that the farmers who is owning less than 5 acres of agricultural land are entitled for loan exemption and in this regard he approached the opposite party bank’s Manager and requested him to waive the loan he obtained from the bank and questioned the Manager as to why he did not inform the complainant regarding loan waiver scheme. But the bank officials did not take any action to waive the loan, therefore he chose to send an appeal to then Finance Minister on 1-7-2008 and requested the Hon’ble Minister to take action to waive the loan and then the Hon’ble Central Finance Minister wrote a letter to Zonal Office of Corporation bank at Hassan to take appropriate action, the copy of which was sent to him and another copy was also marked to the opposite party and in this regard he approached the opposite party to waive the loan but the opposite party informed that they have not received any letter from the Hon’ble Finance Minister and due to which he became mentally shocked and had to take treatment from the expert doctor. <br /> <br /> 4. That the complainant being a small holder is entitled for waiving of loan and the opposite party has unnecessarily had brought pressure on him to repay the loan by renewing the loan amount and thereby they are responsible for depriving the opportunity of getting the loan waivement and therefore the complainant has sought a relief to direct the opposite party to waive the loan and such other relief deemed fit under the circumstances.<br /> <br /> 5. The complainant has produced the following documents;<br /> <br /> 1. RTC in respect of year 2008<br /> 2. Rough account statement<br /> 3. The copy of the letter addressed to the Hon’ble Central Finance Minister.<br /> 4. Copy of the loan account statement prepared by the opposite party and the medical slips given by Neuro Physiatrist.<br /> <br /> 6. Upon admitting the complaint notice was ordered to be sent to the opposite party and the opposite party on receipt of the notice from this Forum has engaged the advocate and filed the version and has taken following contentions;<br /> <br /> 1. That the complaint is not maintainable both in law and in facts and it has no bonafide and is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 2. That the complainant has misrepresented the facts to suit his convenience. <br /> <br /> 3. That the complainant had availed a coffee loan of Rs.80,000/- from opposite party on 29-6-2005 on the stipulated terms that the account would be closed out of sale proceeds of coffee crop or before June 2006 which ever is earlier, but as promised the complainant did not close the account and therefore the opposite party approached the complainant in person and got the account renewed in the year 2007. <br /> <br /> 4. That the complainant renewed the loan account and as such he could not avail the benefit of the debt waiver scheme announced by the Finance Minister for which the opposite party is not responsible.<br /> <br /> 5. That the complainant has alleged coercion against opposite party and the said allegations cannot be decided under the limited jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore the complainant has to agitate and to prove the same before the Civil Court through a detailed enquiry of trial. However the complainant is put to strict proof of the allegations made against the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 6. That the opposite party is not liable to the loss suffered by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. For the foregoing reasons the opposite party pray for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 8. Both the parties have filed their affidavit evidence in lieu of examination in chief.<br /> <br /> 9. During pendancy of the complaint the complainant has filed a petition prepared by his wife stating that the attender of the bank has approached the wife of the complainant when the complainant was not in his house and offered Rs.5,000/- and when she refused to take that amount and insisted the bank attender to take back the amount then the bank attender took away that Rs.5,000/- which was kept on the sofa and also the bank attender told her that he has not taken any bribe from her husband let her husband take oath that he has paid bribe to him and in turn she told the bank attender that he can contact and convince her husband when he comes back to the house and went away so saying and crying from the house of the complainant. <br /> <br /> 10. Having regard to the stand taken by each of the parties the following issues arise for determination.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the opposite party has committed any deficiency in service ?<br /> <br /> 2. To what order ?<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 11. The main averments made in the complaint by the complainant that the opposite party should have given the opportunity to waive the loan as he is a small grower owning less than 5 acres of agricultural land and he was compelled by the bank officials to renew the loan as the loan was over due and had the bank officials informed him that he is entitled for the loan waiver he would not have agreed for renewing the bank loan and the bank officials have played coercion and fraud on him and therefore even now he is entitled for waiving of loan as per the scheme introduced by the central government and prayed for a direction from this Forum to direct the opposite party to order for cancellation of loan under the loan waivers scheme.<br /> <br /> 12. As against the above submissions made by the complainant, the learned Advocate for the opposite party bank has argued that it is not correct and true to say that the opposite party bank has brought coercion and pressure on the complainant to renew the bank loan as the loan was over due (The complainant has availed the loan on 29-6-2005 and the account renewed was in the year 2007) and it is further also submitted that the loan account was renewed and same was not overdue as on 31-12-2007, the benefit of the debt waiver announced by the Finance Minister was not available to the complainant, there benefit under the said scheme could not be provided.<br /> <br /> 13. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the O.P that the alleged coercion against the opposite party bank are all baseless and the complainant has not placed any materials in support of such allegations and the matters relating to coercion, fraud etc., etc., cannot be enquired by this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 14. The learned advocate for O.P has filed a memo of citation quoting a decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 163 and AIR 1976 SC 712 wherein it is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the matter relating to the allegations regarding coercion, undue influence and fraud, which general and vague in nature, cannot be decided without sufficient documents.<br /> <br /> 15. However to know the truth or otherwise of complaint in regard to the deficiency in service the complainant was permitted to summon documents in relating to his loan accounts and other related documents. Accordingly the Manager of the opposite party bank produced the relevant documents sought to be summoned by the complainant and also as per the request of the complainant’s advocate the complainant was permitted to cross examine the present Manager of the opposite party bank. The advocate for the complainant cross examined the Manager with reference to the documents produced such as SB Account statement and two loan accounts computer generated statements. But nothing substantial aspects have been elicited from the Manager while cross examining him. The present Manager admit that the complainant was over due in the year 2007 in respect of the loan obtained in the year 2005 and in this regard he further states that the complainant was approached and was asked to clear the loan amount which was due to the bank and then complainant agreed to renew the loan account and cleared the over dues. The Manager in his depositions denied the allegations that the complainant was put pressure and suppressed the fact of loan waiving as per the scheme introduced by the Finance Ministry and further has stated on oath that on the cut off date complainant was not over due as he had already renewed his loan account and the benefit of the loan waivers scheme could not be extended to the complainant and therefore the bank has not committed any deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 16. We have perused all the documents produced by the bank and are of the considered opinion that no malafide can be attributed to the bank and everything is done in accordance with the RBI guidelines and the circular issued by the Finance Ministry.<br /> <br /> 17. It is alleged in the complaint that the attender of the Corporation Bank Hudikeri Branch came to his house and collected Rs.2,000/- as bribe, but nothing is elicited from the opposite party bank’s Manager to prove the allegation made against the attender, but the Manager has stated in cross examination that on receipt of the copy of the complaint made by the complainant to the Finance Minister; from Hassan Zone of Corporation Bank and the complainant was secured and loan for installing sprinkler set in his land was recommended to the zonal level office of the bank and accordingly after approval by the said authorities has sanctioned him the loan to the extent of Rs.2,30,000/- though the complainant has asked for loan of Rs.2.90,000/- and in this respect the complainant has written a letter to the Manager, Corporation Bank stating that he would make good any short fall in the amount on his own and therefore the loan of Rs.2,30,000/- was disbursed to the complainant to purchase sprinkler set and to dig the tank to provide water source. It is also in the cross examination of the opposite party bank’s Manager that the complainant failed to comply to furnish 3 acres coffee registration certificate, therefore, the entire loan could not be sanctioned to the complainant. Even now the bank is prepared to lend the balance of loan if the complainant produces documents in respect of 3 acres but hither to the complainant has failed to do so. Therefore, additional loan asked for, by the complainant could not be sanctioned. The say of the Manager has been supported with documentary evidence. The records made available also reveal that the complainant was sanctioned on two occasions the crop loans and on one occasion the loan for purchasing sprinkler set. Therefore the allegations of the complainant that injustice has been caused to him do not hold water and allegations are bald and general in nature without proof.<br /> <br /> 18. The Manager of the Corporation Bank has justified and substantiated the action taken by him in not providing the benefit of loan waivers scheme to the complainant as on the dates specified in the circular the complainant was not at all over due to the bank and by that time the old loan was renewed. <br /> <br /> 19. The allegation of fraud, coercion and cheating cannot be enquired in to by this Forum as the scope of the Forum is very limited as we have to see whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service or not. However the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate Forum to establish the allegations of fraud, coercion and cheating. The Manager of the Bank has been asked to look to the allegations made by the complainant against the attender and to take appropriate action in this behalf. <br /> <br /> 20. It is also submitted by the advocate for the complainant that a petition has already been sent to bank ombudsman to take appropriate action. <br /> <br /> 21. Hence, on perusal of the materials made available before us it cannot be said that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and therefore point no.1 is answered negatively and proceed to pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. The parties to bear their own cost.<br /> <br /> Communicate the order to the parties.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the open Forum on this 13th day of March 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> (M.R. DEVAPPA), (K.S. PRASAD), (A.S. HEMALATHA),<br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />