DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.
Present: Sri Manoranjan Hazra,President.
Sri Lingaraj Khadanga,Member.
C.C.No.264/2008
Prasanta Kumar Nayak,
At/PO:Khandeita,PS:Sadar,
Dist:Cuttack. … Complainant.
Vrs.
1. The Chief Executive,
The Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Tinikonia Bagicha,Cuttack.
2. The C.G.M,Reserve Bank of India,
Sachibalaya Marg,Bhubaneswar. … Opposite Parties.
JUDGMENT DT.9.12.09
Sri Lingaraj Khadanga,Member
Alleging deficiency in service by not waiving out the debt under the Debt waiver and debt relief scheme,2008, this case has been filed praying waiver of the loan on the following grounds.
1. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he was sanctioned with a loan of Rs.25,000/- vide loan A/c No.B/S/1028 dt.12.5.1997 by Opposite Party No.1 for investing in broiler scheme for maintenance of his livelihood. During the year 1999, due to super cyclone, the scheme was devastated in as much as most of the birds succumbed to death and hence the complainant sustained heavy loss. For making good the loss, he approached Opposite Party No.1 severally for one time settlement as well as Debt Relief but no action was taken by the Opposite Parties even after Debt Relief Scheme came into force during the year 2008. The complainant was constrained to request the Opposite Parties vide Annex-2 series, but no action was taken by the said Opposite Party. Hence the case.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 admits the loan availed by the complainant on 12.5.1997 but contends that the loan amount has never been invested in the broiler farm. Further he admits receipt of applications under Aannexs-3 & 4 for one time settlement and only after NABARD Scheme for waiving out the debt under agriculture scheme came into force in June,08 and after receipt of intimation on that score from Reserve Bank of India, all such cases including the present case are under consideration for waiver. Thus there being no deficiency on the part of this Opposite Party, he prays to exonerate him from the allegations.
3. On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.2, in his written version admits that after receipt of requests regarding waiver from the complainant, his petition was forwarded to Opposite Party No.1 for taking action under debt waiver and debt relief scheme,08 and finally the complainant has been granted permissible Debt Relief of Rs.23,546/- under the scheme and this position has been informed to the complainant vide letter No.UBD/BFU 797/22015/2008-09 dt.8.1.09 Annex-3. Since due relief has been granted to the complainant and cause of action has vanished he prays to dismiss the case on the above grounds.
4. From above, the crux of the matter drawing our attention is whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. or not?
Admittedly the complainant availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- in the year 1997 for investment in broiler scheme. The scheme was devastated due to the super cyclone held in 1999. After super cyclone, he has definitely sustained loss and undergone mental agony. In order to get relief including one time settlement he has approached Opposite Party No.1 but Opposite Party No.1 was undone till introduction of debt waiver scheme,2008. After introduction of this scheme, the debt to the tune of Rs.23,546/- has been waived. Hence we find, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Thus the cause of action being vanished and nothing more to decide, the case is closed. No cost.
Judgment pronounced in the open Forum on this the 9th day of December,2009 under the seal and signature of this Forum.
President. Member.