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

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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: