West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/11/4

Bikash Chandra Basak - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Ajijul Hoqac Molla

20 Jun 2011

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal

(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2^nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)

Telefax: (03522)-270013

Present

Sri B. Niyogi - President

Sri S. K. Ghosh - Member

Consumer Complaint No. 4/2011

Bikash Chandra Basak,

S/o Himanshu Basak,

Vill & P.O. Angina, P.S. Kumarganj,

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur.……………………………Complainant

V-E-R-S-U-S

1. The Branch Manager,

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Dangarhar Branch,

P.O. Dangarhat, P.S. Kumarganj,

Dist- Dakshin Dinajpur.

2. The District Co-ordinator,

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank,

2^nd floor, Balurghat Municipal Complex, (Near Indian Red Cross)

P.O. & P.S. Balurghat, Dist-D/Dinajpur,

3. The Chief General Manager,

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Berhampore.

Dist. Murshidabad ………………Opposite Parties

For complainant ……………… - Sri Ajijul Haque Moll, Ld. Adv.

Date of Filing : 14.03.2011

Date of Disposal : 20.06.2011

Order No.8

Dt. 20.06.2011

Lawyer’s hazira has been filed on behalf of the complainant.

The case record is taken up for order. Such order follows hearing on point of admission of the complaint.

The complainant brought the complaint on 14.3.11 against three officials of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank alleging deficiency in service.

Complainant’s case as made out in the said complaint virtually is that on 10.3.2007 he took from the OP Bank loan of a certain amount under the Loan A/c MT/A1/PISCIL/160/07 for the purpose of agriculture. The Central Government by an order issued thereafter declared that the loan disbursed in between 31.3.1997 to 31.03.2007 would stand waived. In view of such waiver of loan the complainant by a petition made before the OP Bank prayed for a clearance certificate respecting the said loan A/c. But such clearance certificate has not been issued by the OP Bank. In such premises, the complainant brought the complaint praying for a direction upon the OP Bank to issue the clearance certificate and to pay compensation.

On the first day of hearing on point of admission it could be noticed by this Forum that though a copy of the passbook of the concerned loan A/c and other papers were filed, no document was presented in support of the Government’s order as to the waiver of loan. Such document could ultimately be filed by the complainant on 27.5.11. Hearing on the point of admission has been concluded on 16.6.11.

It is now to be determined whether the complaint should be admitted. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint, the documents filed on behalf of the complainant and have taken into consideration the submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsel .

Here deficiency in service alleged in the complaint is that despite waiver of the loan by the Govt., the OP Bank did not issue the clearance certificate notwithstanding submission of an application for the purpose from the end of the complainant. In course of hearing the Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant drew our attention to a copy of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 contained in a Government’s Circular

dt. 23.5.2008 (filed by the complainant on 27.5.2011) and urged that as the complainant has been a small farmer and as he availed of the loan during the period contemplated in the scheme, he is entitled to be relieved from making repayment of the loan.

Para 2.1 of the said scheme says that the scheme will cover direct agricultural loans extended to marginal and small farmers and other farmers by, beside others, Local Area Banks.

“Direct Agricultural Loans” has been defined in Para 3.1 of the Scheme with says :

“*** 3.1 : ‘Direct Agricultural Loans’ means Short Terms Production Loans and Investment Loans provided directly to farmers for agricultural purposes.”

In Para 3.2 of the Scheme it has been stated that ‘Short Term Production Loan’ means a loan given in connection with the raising a crops which is to be repaid within 18 months.

It was urged by the Ld. Counsel that the loan availed by the complainant was a short term production loan as he was to repay to the loan after harvesting of the crops.

But we find from the copy of the passbook filed by the complainant that the concerned loan was availed of for a project of fishery and was to be repaid in 5 yearly installments. So the said loan can not be regarded to be a Short Term Production Loan.

However, we find that the loan availed by the complainant can be regarded to be an ‘Investment Loan’ within the meaning of such term enjoined in Para 3.3 (b) of the Scheme so as to view the said loan to be one within the meaning of ‘Direct Agricultural Loans’ contemplated in Para 3.1 of the Scheme.

Para 4 of the Scheme prescribed the amount eligible for the debt waiver or debt relief under the scheme. Barring portions not material in the context of our present consideration extract of the said Para 4 runs as under:

*** 4 Eligible amount:

The amount eligible for debt waiver or debt relief ***shall comprise of …………

1. ******

2. In the case of an investment loan, the installments of such loan that are overdue ( together with applicable interest on such installment) if the loan was :

1. disbursed upto March 31, 2007 and overdue as on Dec 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until Feb. 29, 2008.

2. ***

3. ***

Explanation: In the case of investment loan disbursed upto March 31, 2007 and classified as non-performing asset or suit filed account only the installments that were overdue as on December 31, 2007 shall be the eligible amount …..

Here it has been the averment of the complainant made in Para 2 of the POC that the loan was taken on 10.3.2007. As to the period of repayment, it appears to have been noted in the passbook that the loan was to be repaid in 5 yearly installments. So no installment of repayment could have remained overdue on December 31, 2007 i.e. within about a month of disbursement of the loan. So the complainant is not entitled to waiver or relief of any amount under the Scheme.

Here the complainant’s case is that before the OP Bank he sought for clearance certificate solely on ground of waiver or relief granted under the Scheme and not on the ground of his making repayment in full.

From the copy of the OP Bank’s letter dt. 6.8.2010 filed by the complainant it appears that under such letter the OP Bank intimated the complainant that he was not entitled to get the benefit of waiver or of relief under the Scheme.

As we have found that the complainant is not entitled to waiver or relief of any amount under the scheme, the said response made from the end of the OP Bank under their letter dt. 6.8.10 or its refusal to grant a clearance certificate should hardly be viewed to have been a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

The present complaint alleging deficiency in service, thereafter should not be allowed to be proceeded with.

Accordingly, it is.

O R D E R E D

That the complaint brought by the complainant Sri Bikash Chandra Basak on 14.3.2011 be rejected in terms of Sub. sec (3) of Sec.12 CP Act.

Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the complainant forthwith free of cost.