IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present:Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A. No.918 of 2023 [Against the order dated 07.11.2022 passed in C.C.No.22 of 2017 by the D.C.D.R.C., The Nilgiris].

FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 M. Yuvarajkumar, S/o. K. Mathagouder, D.No.2/85, Elithurai, Yedappalli Post, Coonoor – 643 103, The Nilgiris District. ...Appellant/Complainant.

- Vs –

The President, Yedappalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society No.J.338, Elithurai, Yedappalli Post, Coonoor – 643 103, The Nilgiris District. ...Respondent/Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s. R. Sivakumar.

Counsel for the Respondent/O.P. : Notice served.

This appeal came up for final hearing on 31.01.2025, and on hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

THIRU. R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed as against the order dated

07.11.2022 passed in C.C.No.22 of 2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, The Nilgiris, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.

2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he is a small tea grower and he is a member of the opposite party Society for the last 25 years. During the financial year 2016- 2017, the opposite party Society had sanctioned loans to the small time farmers. The complainant had applied for a loan to the opposite party on 16.12.2016. He has also mortgaged his land measuring to an extent of 2.35 acres by depositing the title deeds. The opposite party has agreed to grant a loan amount of Rs.40,000/- per acre, i.e. totally to the tune of Rs.80,000/-. Further, the opposite party asked the complainant to pay the share amount of Rs.8,100/-. Hence, on 16.12.2016, the complainant has paid the said amount. Thereafter, he was made to run from pillar to post for more than 3 months. The opposite party has not taken any action on the loan application submitted by the appellant. In fact, they have granted loan to several other members. Since the loan was not sanctioned, the complainant was not in a position to carry on the manure process and other maintenance work in his garden. On account of which, the complainant lost the benefits of the harvesting the tea leaves during summer season. Since the opposite party has received the share amount of Rs.8,100/- from the complainant, he is bound to sanction the loan. Since they failed to sanction the loan, the complainant had approached the Consumer Council by submitting a petition dated 16.03.2017. Based on the said petition, on 19.03.2017, the Consumer Council sent a letter to the opposite party, for which, the opposite party sent a reply on 23.03.2017, in which, they have accepted the amount of Rs.8,100/- paid by the complainant. But, they have not come forward to sanction the loan. Since the complainant was not sanctioned the loan, he has filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service directing the opposite party to sanction the agricultural loan of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of income and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the litigation costs.

3. The said case was resisted by the opposite party by filing a version stating that it is true that the complainant applied for a loan to the opposite party society on 16.12.2016. The applicants who have applied for loan earlier than the complainant in the month of November, 2016 itself have not been given loan as the time for issuing loan was over for the financial year. The complainant never entered into any kind of agreements or contract with the opposite party. He applied only for a loan and requested the opposite party to sanction the same. The allegation that the opposite party have agreed to give him loan amount of Rs.40,000/- per acre is not true and the said alle