JHUNJHUNU PRIMARY LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK vs GANPATRAM

PETITIONERS were the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 before the District Forum, where the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners as also respondent No. 4.

VERY briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (the complainants before the District Forum) who belongs to Scheduled Castes, with a view to buy a tractor, obtained a loan from the petitioner Bank to the extent of Rs. 1,60,000. The rest of the amount was to come from the complainants. There is no dispute that the payment was made by the bank to the 4th respondent, who was the dealer of the Swaraj Tractor in Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. It was the case of the complainants that despite making the payment, the delivery of tractor was never given to them, instead the possession was delivered to one Rati Ram and Mehar Singh, belonging to Jat caste by making a forged bill in the name of the complainants. The matter was reported by the complainants to the petitioner but when the issue was not getting resolved, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, where the matter was contested by the petitioners. The matter was contested by the petitioners and the 4th respondent and the District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint with the following directions : "1. Opposite party No. 1 Dayanand Singh Modsara, Proprietor, Shekhawati Auto Tractors and Spare Parts, Bandhe Ke Balaji, Churu By-pass Road, Jhunjhunu will get received to the complainants new tractor of the same Model of which has received price of Rs. 2,05,390 from the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 vide Bill No. 290 dated 13.12.1995 within 15 days. If he fails to do as such, then the received amount of price Rs. 2,05,390 from date 13.12.1995 till the date of payment interest on that amount and other expenses which were to be recovered by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 from the complainants, pay that complete amount to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 within one month. If the opposite party No. 1 fails to pay that amount within one month, then opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 will be entitled to receive interest till the date of payment and other expenses of that amount in accordance with the provisions and rules of their bank.

Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in the situation of new tractor being not received by complainants shall not recover any amount of loan from the complainants and pay within one month the amount of Rs. 61,655 deposited with them by the complainants. Complainants will be entitled to receive interest @ 18% p.a. on this amount from 11.12.1995 to date of payment.

Complainants have remained devoid of the benefit of tractor till today since 1995 and have suffered mental agony, therefore, are entitled to receive Rs. 5,000 from opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, total Rs. 10,000 as compensation, complainants will be entitled to receive this amount individually and collectively from opposite party No. 1 and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.

Complainants will be entitled to receive Rs. 1,000 as case expenses from opposite parties for the payment of this amount, opposite party will be liable individually and collectively. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 will be entitled to recover the loss occurring to the bank from those employees due to the fault of whom the Bank has suffered loss due to not getting the tractor to the complainants and will also pay within one month compensation and case expenses to the complainants."

Aggrieved by this order, two separate appeals were filed before the State Commission by the petitioners and respondent No. 4, which were dismissed. This revision petition has been filed only the petitioners before us.

We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at great length. There is no dispute that the petitioners had sanctioned loan, after executing a deed of mortgage in their favour from the second respondent, yet the tractor was not delivered to them. Both the lower Fora have held the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 to be deficient in rendering service and there is concurrent finding in this regard. However, the plea before us is that the Insurance Policy was in the name of the complainant and registration was also in their name. After perusal of material on record, we find that as far as the insurance policy is concerned, it is in the name of the complainant but we are unable to satisfy ourselves as to who had made the proposal for getting this policy and who had paid the premium? Hence we are unable to sustain the plea of the petitioner. As far as registration of the vehicle is concerned, as rightly held by both the lower Fora, the engine number of the vehicle alleged to have been sold to the complainants is different than the number which appears in the registration and there is the statement in this regard by the office of the RTO concerned.

BOTH the lower Fora have carefully gone into all the questions of facts and law and have held that petitioners along with respondent No. 4 were deficient in rendering service. There is no dispute that the complainants belong to Scheduled Castes Community, having very little knowledge/literacy levels. The onus lay on the bank to ensure that the goods being funded by them, are delivered to the beneficiary. More so, in these circumstances when the complainants were belonging to a special community and not known to be knowledgeable in this regard. In view of above, we see no merit in the revision petition filed before us. However, we make it clear that the liability of the petitioner shall be limited to an amount of Rs. 49,005 only and not Rs. 61,655 as directed to be paid by the District Forum (para 2 of the reliefs) for the simple reason that Rs. 12,650 were the share money given by the complainants to become members of the bank which they continue to be till today and are getting the return as a share holder. As far as the interest awarded by the District Forum on this amount is concerned, it is also reduced to 15% p.a. as per terms of the grant of loan upto March, 2005 and after which it will carry interest @ 11% p.a. till the date of payment as per interest rate being charged by the petitioners in other cases. As far as compensation of mental agony is concerned, the liability of the complainant shall be limited to Rs. 5,000 and to that extent para 3 of the relief shall stand modified. The rest of the amount has to be recovered from the 4th respondent, i.e., Dayanand Singh Modsara, Proprietor Shekhawati Auto Tractor and Spare Parts, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. The complainant shall be entitled to receive a cost of Rs. 1,000 from the petitioner. The order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission stands modified in above terms.

THE revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. Petition disposed of.