Angurun Nessa Barbhuiya - Complainant(s)


The Branch Manager, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Ansarul Hoque

29 Dec 2021


Complaint Case No. CC/37/2017
( Date of Filing : 26 Dec 2017 )
1. Angurun Nessa Barbhuiya
Vill- Buribail Part-II, P.O. Ganigram, P.S- Katigorah, Dist- Cachar
1. The Branch Manager, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank.
Borjatrapur Branch, P.O- Borjatrapur, P.S- Borkhola
2. Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Represented by its regional manager.
Ambikapatty, Vhowrangi, P.O- Silchar, P.S- Silchar
  Kamal Kumar Sarda MEMBER
PRESENT:Adv. Ansarul Hoque, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Adv. Sibdas Dutta, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 29 Dec 2021
Final Order / Judgement

Judgment & Order


Brief  facts of the complainant’s case  is that the complainant  is a poor rural  agriculturist and a job  card holder under the Mahatma  Gandhi Gramin National  Employment Guarantee Act’ 2005  having  bank  account  No.- 7320010001420  with  the Opposite  Party  bank  namely  Assam  Gramin Vikash Bank,  Barjatrapur  Branch and  the said account was opened  on  02/01/2010.  That in the year  2012 though the  complainant applied for  Kishan Credit Card Loan ( in short  KCC loan )  with the  O.P. No.1  Barjatrapur Branch of the Assam Gramin Vikash bank  but received no information either from the bank or from the concerned department regarding  sanctioning of any loan by the  O.P.  and also no amount was credited in the aforesaid savings account of the complainant at any point of time.  Subsequently on  11/08/2017  O.P.  No.-1  informed  the complainant  that a loan  of Rs.24,500/- ( Rs. Twenty four thousand five hundred )  only was disbursed on   19/02/2013 through loan account No.-7320250002646.  But the O.P.  did not provide her  details information.  Later on  the  O.Ps.  closed  the transaction in the savings account.   According to the complainant, she came to know  in the month of January’2017 that  on  13/08/2013   an amount of Rs.24,500/-  was sanctioned and the  said amount was withdrawn.    It has been alleged by the complainant that the said loan amount has been misappropriated  by showing the sanctioning and disbursing of  loan amount keeping the complainant in dark.  By  doing so the O.P.  bank has caused disservice to the complainant.   Under the circumstances the complainant has prayed for passing an award  for payment of Rs. 65,000/- ( Rupees sixty five thousand ) only by the O.P. for losses suffered by the complainant and  for cost of the proceeding  etc. 

                                                      The  O.P.  Nos. 1 & 2  have contested  the  case  by filing written  objection  stating , interalia, that  there is no cause of action  for filing this  case,  that the complaint is not maintainable,  that the complaint  is bad for defect  of parties,  that the complaint is barred by  the law of limitation   etc.  The  O.Ps. have denied the allegations  lavelled  by  the  complainant.   According to the , the complainant applied for  Kishan Credit Card  loan  and  on  15/09/2012    an  amount of  Rs.24,500/- ( Rupees twenty four thousand five hundred ) only was sanctioned and  on the same date the O.P.  No.-1  handed  over  the  loan  sanction letter to the complainant who accepted the same.  The complainant also  executed  various documents  for availing the  loan  facility.  She also withdrew  the amount in cash  by putting her signature on the relevant withdrawal slip.  Further version of  the O.Ps.  is that  a  sum of Rs.32,509/-  is   outstanding  in  the  said  loan  account  of  the complainant  as on  02/11/2017 and the complainant failed to  repay the same.  The  O.Ps.  have also claimed that at no point of time an amount of Rs.700/- was deducted from the savings account of the complainant and the said  S/B  account  is   active  till date.   Also  their further claim is that  at no point of time  the  O.Ps. committed any disservice to the complainant.   As such the case of the complainant  is liable to be dismissed  with cost  to  the answering  O.P.  

                                                In  support of the case,  the  complainant  submitted  her evidence  on  affidavit  as  PW-1  alongwith some exhibited documents.  On the other hand,   from the side of   O.P.   evidence  on  affidavit of  Sri  Bimal Sarma, Branch Manager of the  O.P.  bank  was  submitted alongwith some exhibited documents.   After closing of the evidence  both  sides  submitted written argument.  Also heard oral argument  put forward by the learned counsel. Perused the entire evidence on record. 

                                           The statement of PW-1  in her evidence is that she is a poor agriculturist  and  a job card holder  under  the  MGNREGA  scheme .  She  has got a savings bank account bearing  No. 7320010001420  with  the  O.P..  No-1.  In the year  2012  she applied for  Kishan Credit Card  loan ( in short  KCC loan)  but no information  was  received from the  O.P.‘s   bank and  no amount was also deposited or credited  in her S/B account.   Subsequently,  according to PW-1,  in the month of January  she went to the bank of O.P.  No.-1  for updating her passbook but she was informed that her bank account had been closed.  However  on  11/08/2017  she was informed by the Branch Manager of the bank that  an amount of Rs.24,500/- ( Rupees twenty four thousand five hundred )  only was disbursed as loan.  It has been  claimed  by  PW-1  that  inspite of her persuation  the  O.Ps.  provided  her  no information  regarding  details of her  loan.  As a result, she was compelled  to issue  notice to the bank through her engaged lawyer.  PW-1  has alleged that  keeping her in darkness  misappropriation  of Rs.24,500/-  took  place by showing  the sanctioning  and  disbursing of said  amount  as loan and also on 15/12/2015  an amount  of  Rs.700/-  was  debited  from her savings account keeping her in darkness.   According to  PW-1,  thus  the  O.P.  bank caused disservice to her  by their aforesaid  activities.  PW-1  has exhibited  Ext.-1  Job card under MGNREGA,   Ext.-2  her  S/B account  alongwith  Annexure -1  letter dated  09/03/2016, Annexure- 2  legal  notice dated  30/09/2016  and  Annexure-3  Acknowledgement Card.

                                                So from the above discussion of the evidence of the complainant (PW-1)  it reveals that  she has got a S/B account  with the O.P.  bank  and  she applied for  KCC loan and an amount of Rs. 24,500/- was sanctioned to her as loan and the said amount  was also disbursed.  However  it  has been alleged  by PW-1 that keeping her in darkness  loan was sanctioned and disbursed.  But  in his evidence  DW  Sri  Bimal Sarma, the Branch Manager  of O.P. No.-1  branch,  has categorically  stated  that  the Kishan Credit Card loan applied for by the complainant  was allowed by the  O.P.  No.-1  and  a  loan  amounting  to  Rs.24,500/-  ( Rs. twenty four thousand five hundred ) only   was  sanctioned to the complainant on  15/09/2012.  On the same  date  the o.P.  No.-1  handed over the relevant loan sanction letter to the complainant who received the same by putting her  endorsement.  So,  according to DW,  the  sanctioning of Rs.24,500/-  as  KCC loan  to the complainant  was within her knowledge since  15/09/2012 , on which date  she also executed various documents  for availing the said loan facility.  Further  version of the DW  is that  the said loan amount was credited to the account  of the complainant and she herself withdrew the same in cash  from the  O.P.  bank  by putting  her signature on the withdrawal form.  Dw  has denied the fact that an amount of Rs.700/- was deducted from the  S/B  account   of the complainant as claimed by her.  Also  the Dw  has specifically stated that  the S/B account of the complainant was not closed and the said account is still active.

                                               In support of his claim  the DW has exhibited  Ext.-A  to  Ext.-E  documents.     Ext.-A  is the certified copy of the S/B account of  complainant  Angarun Nessa  Barbhuiya ,  Ext.-B  is the certified copy of the statement of    KCC  loan  standing in the name of  Angarun Nessa  Barbhuiya.  Ext.-C  is the loan  sanctioning  letter ,   Ext.- D  is the loan  agreement  executed  by  the  complainant  and  Ext.-E   is  the demand  promissory  note   executed  by  Angarun  Nessa  Barbhuiya.  But in the written argument  the  complainant  side  has claimed that the signatures appearing in  Exts.-C, D & E   in the name of the complainant  do not tally with the signatures of the complainant made in her complaint petition.

                                              It  may be mentioned  that in the present case  the  O.Ps. filed  counter claim petition and in favour of  the  said  counter claim petition evidence on affidavit of  witness  Bimal Sarmah  has been furnished alongwith some exhibited documents  i.e., Ext.-1  to   Ext.-7.    Out of those documents  Ext.-1  is the loan  application  of the complainant.    Ext.-3 to Ext.-5  documents show that  the same were  executed by the complainant.  According to the O.Ps. ,  the complainant  withdrew  the loan amount  in cash by  submitting withdrawal slip.  They have also exhibited  the  said withdrawal  slip as  Ext.-7  which  contains the signatures  of   Angarun  Nessa  Barbhuiya .  But during the course of argument the complainant side  has disputed the signatures appearing in the name of  the complainant in the said withdrawal slip .  Though  the complainant side has taken the plea that  the signatures appearing in  the withdrawal slip as well as in Exts.  C, D & E in the name of the complainant were not signed or written by the complainant herself but  after  comparing  in bare eye those signatures appearing in the name of Angarun Nessa  Barbhuiya  with the signatures of the complainant available in her complaint petition  we do not find  major  dissimilarity or difference.  There is also no  steps  taken by the complainant side  in the case  for examination  of the signatures in the withdrawal slip and  in other loan documents appearing in the name of Angarun  Nessa  Barbhuiya by any handwriting expert.  So  from the documents exhibited by the O.P.  side regarding loan  matter  there is hardly any scope to disbelieve  the fact that the complainant  executed the loan documents and withdrew the loan amount in cash from the O.P.  bank through  the withdrawal slip.  There also  appears  no  disservice  caused by the  O.P.  towards the complainant.

                                        Again  though  in the present case the  O.Ps.  have   submitted a  counter claim petition  with the prayer to direct the complainant  to repay the loan amount  but  the complainant  side  has  objected  the  said  counter  claim petition stating that the same is not maintainable.  Here in the present case the O.Ps. are not the consumer.   As such their prayer cannot be considered  and they cannot get  any  relief in the case. 

                                         From the above discussions of the evidence on record it has come out that the complainant has failed to establish her claims.  Accordingly, the case stands dismissed.  No costs. 

                                         Given under hand and seal of this commission on this 29th day  of   December/2021.

[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Samarjit Dey]
[ Kamal Kumar Sarda]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.