STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJENDRA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these revision petitions arise out of common order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order.

(2.) These revision petitions have been filed by petitioner against order dated 6.7.2015 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. FA/13/123, State Bank of India Vs. Rajendra & Anr. ; FA/13/125, State Bank of India Vs. Gunmala & Anr. ; FA/13/255, National Horticulture Board Vs. Rajendra & Anr. and FA/13/256, National Horticulture Board Vs. Gunmala & Anr. , by which appeals were dismissed.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondent No. 1 filed separate complaints before District Forum and submitted that they are owner of land and as per scheme of opposite party No. 1/petitioner, they cultivated grapes in their land. Complainants obtained loan of Rs. 500 lakh from opposite party No. 2/petitioner and also invested Rs. 1,35,525. It was further pleaded that Government sanctioned subsidy of Rs. 1,27,505 and this amount was required to be deposited in their loan account but this amount was not deposited in their loan account. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainants filed separate complaints before District Forum. Opposite Party No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that complainants obtained the loan from opposite party No. 2 which was to be repaid as per terms and conditions of loan. It was, further, pleaded that complainants repaid loan much before the stipulated period and thus violated terms and conditions of loan agreement, so, they were not entitled to subsidy amount and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite Party No. 2 resisted complaint and submitted that opposite party No. 2 is not aware about any scheme or sanction of subsidy and complainant is not their consumer and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,27,505 with 9% p.a. interest along with Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation. Both opposite parties filed separate appeals before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed all appeals against which these revision petitions have been filed.