Ravindra Bandappa Tundalwar vs Divisional Manager , Manager Maharashtra Rajya Krushi And Gramin Bank Ltd

THIS revision petition has been filed by Ravindra Bandappa Tundalwar who was the original complainant before the District Forum, challenging the order dated 1.12.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit Bench, Nagpur (''State Commission'', for short) in Appeal No.80 of 1999. Respondents herein were opposite parties No.3, 1 & 2 respectively before the District Forum.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts of this case are that the petitioner being a farmer wanted to purchase a tractor for his use. For this purpose, he applied for a loan from respondent No.1 under a scheme floated by the Central Government for promotion of agricultural mechanization. Respondent No.1 indicated a price of Rs.3,02,368/- for the tractor in question based on which, the petitioner approached the Bank/respondent No.2 for sanctioning the loan of Rs.3,03,041/- . For this purpose, the petitioner made an initial payment of Rs.57,341/- and also deposited Rs.20,000/- in FDR with the respondent Bank. Thus, the petitioner paid a total amount of Rs.77,341/- to the respondent Bank towards the purchase of the tractor. Respondent � Bank issued certificate sanctioning the loan to the petitioner and asked him to submit the loan certificate to respondent No.1 and take the tractor in his possession through respondent No.1. After delivery of the tractor, he was asked to get the RC book and register the documents in the name of the respondent Bank under the Hire Purchase Agreement after which the respondent Bank will make the payment of the price of the tractor to the seller through respondent No.1. Accordingly, the petitioner Bank went to respondent No.1 along with loan certificate but he was told that mere certificate of the respondent Bank which had been produced by him was not enough and he was asked to get a Demand Draft or a Cheque for the total price of the tractor before the possession thereof could be given to him. On a further contact made by the petitioner with the respondent Bank, the respondent Bank insisted that the certificate issued earlier was enough and that the demand draft or the cheque as required by respondent No.1 could not be given to the petitioner. In the circumstances, a dispute arose between respondent No.1 on the one hand and the Bank (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) on the other. It was the contention of the respondent No.1 that unless the cheque or demand draft of the full price of the tractor is received by it from the respondent Bank or the petitioner, it will not register the tractor in the name of the petitioner. Because of this, the petitioner could not get the tractor and suffered financial loss. It appears that the subsidy available from the Government under the scheme also could not be released in his favour. The petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum.

ON being noticed, the respondents resisted the complaint and made their submissions before the District Forum. After hearing the parties and appraising the evidence placed before it, the District Forum vide its order dated 5.12.1998 accepted the complaint of the petitioner by directing respondent No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.74,209/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of depositing of the amount till the date of its return to the petitioner. It also directed respondent No.1/OP No.3 to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner towards expenditure, Rs.5,000/- for harassment suffered by him, Rs.1500/- for cost and Rs.30,000/- for the loss of subsidy within a period of 30 days.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, respondent No.1 herein filed an appeal before the State Commission which accepted the appeal of the respondent and modified the order of the District Forum in terms of the following directions as per the impugned order:- "i. The rate of interest @ 18% awarded by the Forum on the amount of Rs.74,209/- from the date of its payment till its realization to be paid by Respondent No.2 � Bank to respondent No.1 � Ravindra, is reduced to 7.5% p.a. ii The order of Rs.61,500/- which includes the amount of compensation of Rs.55,000/-, compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental torture and cost of Rs.1,500/- is set aside. iii. Parties to bear their own cost of this appeal."

AGGRIEVED by the above order of the State Commission, the petitioner has now filed the present revision petition for setting aside the impugned order and restoring the order of the District Forum reproduced above.

WE have heard Mr. Ravi Gopal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Thomas Joseph, Advocate for respondent No.1. None has appeared for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Bank.

THE short issue that has arisen for our consideration in this case is as to whether the State Commission was right in setting aside the relief granted by the District Forum in favour of the petitioner against respondent No.1 and also reducing the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum from 18% to 7.5% in respect of the reliefs granted to the petitioner against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. So far as the relief granted to respondent No.1 is concerned, we find that the State Commission has accepted the appeal of respondent No.1 keeping in view the instructions contained in the circular issued by the Head Office of respondent No.1 to the Regional Managers in respect of the implementation of the scheme in question which requires that the tractors are to be delivered by accepting 100% payment in advance from the beneficiaries. A copy of this circular which was issued by respondent No.1 on 11.6.1996 has been placed on record as per our direction by the counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from this circular that the instruction of the Head Office of respondent No.1 regarding insistence for 100% payment in advance before the delivery of the tractors to the beneficiaries is specific and hence respondent No.1 could not be held liable for any deficiency in service in this regard. To this extent, the impugned order granting the relief in favour of respondent No.1 by setting aside the order of the District Forum against it was right and hence it is confirmed. So far as the relief claimed by the petitioner against respondent-Bank is concerned, it is to be noted that the Bank did not challenge the order of the District Forum before the State Commission. However, the State Commission vide its impugned order reduced the rate of interest payable by the respondent Bank from 18% to 7.5% p.a. on the amount of Rs.74,209/-. There is no doubt that the petitioner suffered harassment and financial loss on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank by not complying with the requirement of respondent No.1 while sanctioning the loan under the central scheme. In view of this and also considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that it would be fair and just to increase the rate of interest from 7.5% to 9% p.a. and award cost of Rs.5,000/- by respondents No. 2 and 3 to the petitioner which shall be payable by respondents No. 2 and 3 to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of this order along with interest @ 9% p.a. instead of 7.5%. The revision petition thus is partly allowed and disposed of in terms of these directions.