United Bank of India, Gorabazar Branch,
This is a discussion on United Bank of India, Gorabazar Branch, within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM at Berhampore, Murshidabad. Case No: CC / 159 / 2008. Date of Filing ...
- 09-02-2009, 10:35 PM #1
United Bank of India, Gorabazar Branch,
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
at Berhampore, Murshidabad.
Case No: CC / 159 / 2008. Date of Filing (Original):25.09.2008.
Date of Order : 30.03.2009.S
Name of the Complainant(s) Name of the Opposite party/parties
1.Kutubuddin Sk., Branch Manager,
S/O Islam Sk., United Bank of India,
2. Chandnehar Bibi, Gorabazar Branch,
W/O Kutubuddin Sk., P.O.& P.S. Berhampore, Dist.Murshidabad.
Vill.& P.O. Kashipur,
1. Shri B. Mandal - President
2. Smt. P. Ali - Member.
The petitioner Kutubuddin Sk by filing this application claimed a relief u/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986(as amended up to date). It is contended inter alia in the said application to the effect that petitioners are the cultivators by profession. They have agricultural land less than one hector. According to the Government rules states that the complainants should be treated as “Prantic Chasi”. For the betterment of his agricultural crops he obtained agricultural loan from the OP to the tune of Rs.4, 48,000.00. After obtaining the said loan the complainants have made the payment of some amount but suddenly they have come to know that according to the relevant Notification of the Government of Central Government exempted all Pranctic Chasi(Small Farmer) from their agricultural loan liability. After having gone through the Notification the complainant contacted the OP who informed that they are liable to pay any loan as per their status as Prantic Chasi(Small Farmer) . Accordingly, they have filed application before the OP to exempt them from their loan liability. But the OP has turned a deaf ear to the prayer of the complainant. By filing the instant application before this Forum, the complainant claims proper relief and Redressal so that the petitioner may be exempted from liquidating the said sum of Rs.4, 41,000.00. By filing the instant application the claimant also prays for consequential relief.
The OP, United Bank of India contested this proceeding by filing written version and denied all the material allegations as alleged against the OP. It is contended in the said written version to the effect that the averment made in the complaint therein that under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme,08 the OP has already given relief of Rs.1,57,938.00 out of total loan amount due to that interest to the complainants. The claim of petitioners is imaginary, vogues and without any basis under the schedule 2008.
In the circumstances, the OP has claimed for dismissal of the proceeding with cost.
Points to be decided:-
Under the above averment both parties went on trial with the following points.
(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to waiver the entire amount in question.
(ii) To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled.
Decision with Reasons
Points 1 & 2.
Both the points are taken up together for discussion and consideration for our convenience as they are interlinked and interrelated.
Admittedly, the petitioner took loan from the OP. Admittedly, the petitioner is a cultivator. It is further admitted that the loan in question was advanced by the OP in favour of the petitioner. It is not denied by the OP that the petitioner holds agricultural loan to the extent of less than one hector.
In course of hearing argument Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner/claimant after drawing out attention over the relevant provision of Rural Credit Policy Planning & Operations Department argued that as the status of the petitioners is small and marginal farmers, the entire eligible amount shall be waived. In reply, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the OP further drawing out attention over the relevant Provision of Agricultural Allied Activities argued that according to the relevant provision the petitioner will be exempted from pay off the eligible amount only and the said balance amount must be liquidated by the petitioner in favour of the OP.
We have perused the relevant provision and the entire record with meticulous care. We have also perused the accounts submitted by the OP, United Bank of India, wherein it is found that a sum of Rs.1, 57,938.00 has already been awarded to be deducted from the principal amount of Rs.4, 41,000.00. It reveals in the definition column of eligible amount as mentioned in Agricultural Allied Activities that :5.1----- in case of short term production loans--- the amount of such loan(together with applicable interest) disabused up to March,31,2007 and overdue as on December,31,2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29,2008.”It is also found in provision of 5.2 “ In case of investment loans--- the overdue installments of such loan(including applicable interest on such installments) that are disbursed up to March,31,2007 and overdue as on December 31,2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29,2008.” After having gone through the relevant ingredients in this respect we got materials to say that as there is a overdue amount of Rs1, 57,938.00 as on 29.02.2008 to the borrowers i.e the petitioners fall under (small farmers category and eligible amount of agricultural debt waiver is Rs.1, 57,938.00 and the present petitioner is to be entitled to get relief for the said amount of Rs.1, 57,938.00 as eligible amount treating himself to be a small farmer. In the circumstance, we do hold that out of total amount of Rs.4, 41,000.00 the petitioner will be entitled to get relief of Rs.1, 57,938.00 only and this amount of Rs.1, 57,938.00 is to be deducted from the principal amount of Rs.4, 41,000.00. In the circumstances, the petitioner should be ordered to liquidate the said amount of Rs.(4,41,000.00 – 1,57,938.00)= Rs.2,83,062.00. In view of the above observation we hold that the petitioner/claimant is entitled to get relief in part. Thus the case succeeds in part.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the CC/159/2008 u/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986( as amended up to date) be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OP but on considering the circumstances without cost.
The petitioner is hereby directed to liquidate the said amount of Rs.(4,41,000.00 – 1,57,938.00 ) =Rs. 2,83,062.00 within two months from the date of this order, failing which the OP will be at liberty to recover that amount with interest @ 9% p.a. to be calculated on and from this date till recovery of the entire amount.
The case is thus disposed of .
Dictated and corrected by us.
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 10:42 PM
- By Tanu in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 10:57 PM
- By Tanu in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 10:54 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 12:22 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-31-2009, 12:20 PM