MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs NATIONAL FORUM OF CONSUMERS EDUCATION, AKOLA

THIS order will dispose of both the above titled appeals which have been filed against the common order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay in Complaint Nos. 167 and 168 both of 1993 as common question of facts and law arose in both those complaints. In these complaints, the Complainants were granted Rs. 1.00 lakh compensation on all the counts in each complaint by the State Commission. Complaint No. 167 has been filed by National Forum of Consumers Education (for short the Forum) Akola on behalf of Shri Rambhau Gharuji Kute while Complaint No. 168/93 had been filed by the said Forum on behalf of Pandurang Sampatrao Khajode. The parties will be referred as they were arrayed in the complaint.

THE facts alleged in the complaints are that the Opposite Party No.1 Maharashtra State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (Appellant herein and hereinafter referred to as the Bank) has provided loan to the farmers through its District branches in Maharashtra. The loans are distributed to the farmers after quotations are received for a particular item from local dealer and the payments are directly made to the dealer for the purchase of agricultural implements etc. M/s. Air Wave Radios-Opposite Party No. 2 in Complaint No. 167 now Respondent No. 2 in First Appeal No. 311, and M/s. Averest Electrical Co. Akola is Opposite Party No. 2 in Complaint No. 168 now Respondent No. 2 in First Appeal No. 312, are the local Dealers. Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 (whose names are different in the two complaints and now Respondent Nos.3 and 4) are the manufacturers of pipes and motor pumps. The case of the Complainants in these complaints was that the Bank prepared a scheme to provide lift irrigation facilities from Painganga river to their fields. One Mr. N.D. Autade was appointed as Surveryor by the Bank to advise the Bank whether such scheme was possible. The said Surveyor surveyed the scheme and recommended to the Bank that the scheme was feasible. Quotations were obtained from the local Dealers in November/December, 1992. Pipelines were laid and the irrigation system was installed. The system consisted of motor pump, pipelines, irrigation outlets etc. The electric connection was energised on 25th December, 1992. According to the Complainants despite electric connection and the installation system the water could not be lifted through the pump to the Complainants'' fields. The Complainants made oral complaints to the Bank but till the filing of the two complaints in the month of March, 1993 the Complainants could not get water from the river for irrigating their lands. However, the loan which was sanctioned by the Bank to the Complainants started carrying interest. In case of Rambhau Gharuji Kute the loan sanctioned was Rs. 1,69,800/- and Rs. 17,325/- were obtained from him towards share capital and Rs. 516/- towards valuation fee. In case of Shri Pandurang Sampatrao Khanzode the loan sanctioned was Rs. 3,22,000/- while Rs. 32,370/- were obtained from him towards the share capital. In addition to the above the complainants were required to pay for electric installation etc. It was further alleged by the Complainants that the scheme worked out by Shri Autade, Surveyor of the Bank was so faulty that it never functioned. Apart from the leakage causing damage to the crop the water could not be lifted from the river upto their fields as a result of which the Complainants were put to total loss. Firstly they were required to pay interest to the Bank, secondly they lost income from the agricultural land. In Complaint No. 167/93 the complainant claimed Rs. 1,50,000/-asdamages, Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 3200/- towards wasteful expenditure. In the other Complaint No. 168/93 the Complainant claimed Rs. 1,22,000/-as damages, Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 3600/- towards wasteful expenditure.

THE Bank contested the complaints by filing separate counters. It has described in detail the various functions of the Bank, how share capital is raised and how various Government programmes are undertaken by it and refinanced by NABARD, Central Government etc. The scheme of the loan has also been given in detail. About the present complaints it was stated that the Complainants applied for loans for lift irrigation scheme and those were granted and were disbursed to their satisfaction. In respect of irrigation scheme the normal procedure is as follows: (a) The borrower, as member share holder of the Bank applies for loans. (b) Depending upon the needs of borrower survey is done by the Consulting Engineer attached to the Bank.

The Consulting Engineer is not an employee of the Bank. He is an independent authority who is paid his fees by the borrower for the preparation of the plan estimates, designs, lay out and other relevant things. The Consulting Engineer during 1992-93 was Shri N.D. Autade. The said Consulting Engineer prepared plan estimates for 253 borrowers during the period 1993-94. Out of the said 253 borrowers only two persons who are Complainants in these two complaints have come forward making allegations that either his layout has failed on account of leakages in the joints or the scheme has not started. There is no fault either on the part of the Bank or the Consulting Engineer. Having availed of the loan it is not open to the Complainants to make allegations which have absolutely no basis. In respect of lift irrigation schemes all that is required by the Bank is to consider the application for lift irrigation and provide the borrowers the necessary funds. The Bank has technical staff which also gives advice though there is no such obligation to give technical advice. The Bank has fully discharged all its obligations and there has been no fault or failure on the part of the Bank. The Bank does not guarantee the satisfactory performance of the lift irrigation scheme. It is only concerned with granting and disbursing loan to the agriculturist. If there is leakages in the joints of pipe lines it must be owing to faulty execution of laying down the pipelines which has been done by the borrowers themselves. In Complaint Case No. 167/93 the Bank further pleaded that the scheme of the borrower has not started because he has failed to get the electric connection from MSEB.

AS noticed earlier the State Commission has allowed Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation to each Complainant. Feeling aggrieved against the Order passed by the State Commission in Complaint No. 167, First Appeal No. 311/93 has been filed. First Appeal No. 312/93 has been filed against the order passed in Complaint No. 168/93 by the State Commission. We have heard the parties and have gone through the records. In the present case we have not been able to find any fault in the performance of service by the Bank. The Bank advanced loans to the two Complainants who are agriculturist and who wanted to instal lift irrigation system. The lay out of the scheme was prepared by Mr. Autade. It is not disputed that for preparing the plan estimate etc. the borrower has to pay to the Consulting Engineer. The fees are not paid to the Bank. The Bank only approved the scheme prepared by the Consulting Engineer and then advanced the loan. The pipes etc. have to be purchased by the borrower and in the present case those were purchased by the Complainants themselves, from the approved Dealers. Their only com plaint is about the lay out of the scheme for which the Bank cannot be held responsible the scheme was prepared by the Consulting Engineer. Though the Consulting Engineer attached to the Bank but it is clear from the file that he is not an employee of the Bank. His fees are paid by the borrower.

THE complaint filed by the Forum or behalf of the Shri Rambhau Gharuji Kute was totally false one. In First Appeal No. 311/93 the Appellants have filed Panchnama prepared or 3rd July, 1993 which shows that there is no electricity to the project site nor there was electric pump. The pole which supplies the electricity was 410 ft. away from the field of the said borrower.

FURTHER we have not been able to under stand how the State Commission has awarded Rs. 1.00 lakh to each of the Complainants when there was no evidence except the allegation contained in the respective complaints to establish that the lift irrigation system had failed The State Commission also did not try to fine out what was the fault in the scheme and whether it can be rectified. For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the Bank is not guilty of any negligence or deficiency in rendering Banking service. As noticed earlier in the case of Rambhau Gharuji Kute even the electric connection for the lift irrigation system has not been obtained by him. Consequently we set aside the order of the State Commission in the two complaints and dismiss both the complaints. We further award Rs. 1,000/- as costs in each of the appeals to the Appellant Bank against the respective borrower.