OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAGATSINGHPUR
PRESENT:- SRI S.N.MISHRA,PRESIDENT.
A N D
SRI B.C. SWAIN, MEMBERS.
MRS. M.M.RATH, MEMBERS.
Consumer Complaint No.18 of 2009
Date of Filing: -04.02.2009
Date of Judgment: -12.06.09
Nimain charan Parida
s/o-Chakradhara Parida
vill-Santara
po-Mangarajpur
ps-Kujanga
Dist-Jagatsinghpur
…………………………….complainant
Versus
1. Branch Manager
United Bank of India
Bhutumundei Branch
At/po-Bhutumundai
Ps-Paradeep
Dist-Jagatsinghpur
2. Collector
Jagatsinghpur
At/Po/Dist-Jagatsinghpur
…………………….Opp.parties
For complainant :- Sri D.N.Acharya , Advocate
For O.P.No.1 :- Sri J.Mishra, Advocate
In short the case of the complainant is that he has availed crop loan to the tune of Rs.40,000/- from United Bank of India at its Bhutumundei branch vide loan A/c bearing No.649000 384 and mortgaged A.02.41 decimal of land belonging to his father Dibakar Parida along with his LIC policy worth Rs.3 lakhs vide No.584534748 on 18.05.1974. due to rough weather , irregular monsoon and adverse climate he failed to meet the target hence defaulted in liquidating the loan. It is alleged that the o.p.no.1 (bank) while taking decision as to exemption of loan vide debt relief scheme of the year 2008 instead of accepting area of land at A.2.41 has wrongly accepted the same on A.5.69, thereby complainant is deprived of availing the scheme hence this complaint.
The O.P.no.2 despite receipt of due notice in this proceeding failed to take part hence proceeded exparte vide order 4 dtd 30.03.09.
In short the written version of the o.p.no.1 (bank) is that complainant has not only submitted sale deed dtd.18.05.1974 but also another sale deed dtd.24.07.02 . According to answering o.p.no.1 the sale deed dtd.18.05.74 contained lands measuring an area of A.06.35 decimal which has been mortgaged by complainant to avail the agricultural loan to the tune of Rs.40,000/- during Nov.06 for cultivation over A.05.69 of land. Such loan said to have been disbursed to complainant vide a kissan card. In view of such admitted facts, the loan of the complainant as is coming within clause 3.7 and 6.1 and 3.1 of central debt relief scheme he has been rightly denied to avail opportunity when failed to accept the offer of one time settlement of loan paying less than 25% of loan in terms of the scheme. It is further submitted that complainant instead of seeking protection before the GRO constituted for this purpose having approached this Act, this proceeding is void in bonito and liable to be dismissed with cost.
Under such admitted pleadings of both the parties it can not but be said that complainant by virtue of his loan with the o.p.no.1 (bank) having hired it’s services for consideration in terms of making payment of interest is not coming within meaning of this Act. The submission of complainant that lands measuring an area A.2.41 only has been mortgaged and he availed loan for such land stand rebutted for admitted evidence on record i.e. the loan application form marked-A where in complainant found to have disclosed the total landed properties owned by him at A.5.69 out of which A.2.41 are irrigated lands as such his loan to the tune of Rs.40,000/- stood sanctioned vide sanctioned order marked-B dtd.07.11.06. such facts gets support of copies of registered sale deeds dtd. 24.07.02 and 18.05.74 relied on by o.p.no.1 bank marked-c & c/1, there by complainant as is rightly submitted by the learned advocate for o.p.no.1 comes under term no.3.7 (other farmers) hence entitled to benefit of one time settlement termed in item no.6.1 (i.e. rebate 25% of loan ) but not the entire loan as contended by complainant. The aggrieved complainant as has been rightly pointed out by the o.p.no.1 has not availed the opportunity made available to him vide rule-10-2 of the scheme which provided disposal of grievances if any before the bank GRO constituted for the purpose. However, bonfire action of the o.p. bank as is evident having been exercised in terms of the scheme framed by the central Govt. and the RBI can not be deemed to be deficient in any manner. That, apart the sole disputed fact involved in this proceeding being non according of facilities made available to complainant vide debt relief scheme of 2008 and such provisions having been ousted out of this special act in view of the specific findings of the National Commission Govt. of India reported in NC & SC 1986 at page-4505 in a case between west Bengal state co-operative bank (v) Bimal Kr. Das, we found no merit in this proceeding . for better appreciation such findings are extracted here under :
“ whether beneficiaries of Rural debt relief scheme are consumers – held- the relevant debt relief schemes, where prepared by the Govt. of India as well as by the respective State Government in discharge of their sovereign functions to promote welfare measure and, therefore, such schemes can not confer the status of a consumer on the beneficiaries of these schemes.”
ORDER
In the result this complaint is dismissed, on contest against o.p.no.1 . no order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open forum on this 12th day of June,2009.
M.M.Rath B.C.Swain S.N.Mishra
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Tags: United Bank of India