Forid Ahmed Laskar - Complainant(s)


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

Adv. Ansarul Hoque

29 Dec 2021


Complaint Case No. CC/39/2017
( Date of Filing : 26 Dec 2017 )
1. Forid Ahmed Laskar
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.
Ambicapatty, Chowrangi, 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


Complainant  Forid Ahmed Laskar  has  brought this case stating the facts that  the complainant is a  poor rural agriculturist having  Savings Account with the  O.P.  No. 1  bank for transaction of wages  for works  under  MGNREGA . That in the year 2012 the complainant  applied for  Kishan Credit Card Loan ( in short KCC loan)  through the  O.P.  No.-1  but  received no information either from the bank or from the concerned department in respect of sanctioning of any loan  by the  O.P. No.-1  and also no amount  was  deposited or credited  in the savings  bank  account of the complainant at any point of time.   Subsequently  in the month of January’2017  the complainant went to the office of  O.P.  No.-1  for updating his bank passbook  but  the  O.P. No.-1  refused to  update his bank passbook stating that  his account had  been closed .  At that time the  O.P.  No.-1  , however, informed  him that a loan was sanctioned and disbursed on  13/08/2013  but  supplied  no information as to loan account number.  Subsequently, the O.P.  No.-1  informed him on  11/08/2017 that on 19/02/2013 a loan amount of Rs.24,500/-  was disbursed through the loan account but supplied no other information.  Though   the complainant  submitted  representation  on  09/03/2016 but the  O.P.  did not provide any written information as to the details of loan account.  As a result,  the complainant was compelled to issue notice to the  O.P. on 30/09/2016  through  his engaged  lawyer but no action was taken rather the  O.Ps.  closed the transaction in the  S/B  account  No.73200100011051 and as such the implementing authority of   the  MGNREGA is not providing any  employment  to the


complainant  on the plea that the complainant has no bank account.  According to the complainant,  misappropriation of Rs.24,500/- was done by showing the sanctioning and disbursing of  the amount as loan behind  his back keeping him in darkness.  The complainant has ,therefore,  prayed for  awarding  compensation of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees  fifty thousand ) only  for losses suffered by the complainant due to the illegal activities of the  O.Ps., for cost of the proceeding   and  for giving direction to the  O.P.  to reactivate the Savings Bank account of the complainant  and  for  restraining the O.Ps.  from  withdrawing  or  debiting  any  amount  from the account of the complainant.

                                                 The   O.P. Nos 1&2  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 case is barred by the law of limitation, that the case is bad for defect of parties  etc.  According to the ,  S/B  account No.- 7320010011051  with the  O.P. No.-1   was opened by the complainant  on  12/11/2011.  The  complainant  applied for  Kishan Credit Card Loan  and  accordingly on  15/09/2012  an amount of  Rs.24,500/- ( Rs. Twenty four thousand five hundred ) only  was sanctioned by the  O.P.  No.-1 .  On the same date the  O.P.  also  handed over the loan sanction  letter to the complainant.    It  is  stated  that  on  15/09/2012  the complainant also executed  loan documents  and the sanctioning of Rs.24,500/-  as  KCC  loan   was  within the knowledge  of the complainant.  Out  of  the  said sanctioned  amount   a sum of Rs.12,000/-  was disbursed on 19/02/2013 and the remaining  Rs.12,500/-  was  disbursed  on  22/02/2013 by crediting the same in the loan  account  no. 7320250002677 standing  in the name of the complainant.  The complainant himself withdrew the  said amounts  in cash  from the  O.P.  No.-1  bank by putting  signature  on  the  withdrawal  slips.  As such the sanctioning and disbursing of  KCC  loan  was  fully in the knowledge of the complainant but he neglected to repay the same as per terms and conditions  of loan.  Further  version  of  the O.Ps. is that  the  S/B account of the complainant has not been closed.  But as the account was dormant so  the same could not be updated when  the complainant asked for the same.  It has been denied by the O.Ps. that  on 15/12/2015  Rs.700/- was   debited from the S/B account of the complainant  against the outstanding liability of  his loan account.  Under the  circumstances the O.Ps. have prayed for dismissal of the case. 

                                               In support of the case the evidence on affidavit of the complainant  as PW-1  has been furnished  alongwith some exhibited documents.  On the other hand from the  side of O.P.  evidence on affidavit of  Sri  Bimal  Sarma, the Branch Manager of the O.P.  No.-1  Branch has been submitted in the  case along with some exhibited documents.  Both parties also submitted written argument in the case.   Also  heard oral  argument  put forward by learned counsel.  Perused  the entire evidence on record.  Let us now discuss the evidence below.

                                                   PW-1  , the complainant,  has  stated in his evidence the same  facts narrated in the complaint petition.  According to PW-1, he is a poor agriculturist and job card holder under  MGNREGA scheme.  He has also got a Savings Bank account  with the  O.P.  No.-1  i.e.,  Assam Gramin Bikash Bank,  Barjatrapur  branch . In the year 2012  he applied for Kishan Credit Card Loan ( in short  KCC loan) but received no information either from the bank or from the concerned department in respect of sanctioning of any loan.  PW-1  has further averred that  in the month of January, 2017  he  went to the bank for updating his  S/B  account but he was informed that  his account had been closed and refused to update.  However it has been claimed by PW-1 that  on that day he was informed orally that a loan had been sanctioned to him on 13/08/2013   and  subsequently on  11/08/2017  he was informed in writing that on 19/03/2013  a loan of Rs.24,500/-  was disbursed through loan account no.-7320250002677.  PW-1 has further stated that as he was not furnished details information  of his loan account so he was compelled to issue  notice  through his lawyer but thereafter also  no action was taken by the O.Ps.  rather they  closed the S/B  account  of the complainant.  It  has been alleged by  PW-1  that  misappropriation  of Rs. 24,500/-  had been done  only  by showing  the sanctioning and disbursement  of the loan amount  behind his back and keeping him in darkness.  PW-1  has submitted  his S/B  passbook  as Ext.-1 .  He has also submitted  the xerox copy of  pleader’s  notice  as  Annexure-2.   On the other hand, the evidence of DW-1  goes to show that  the complainant has got a  Savings  Bank account with the O.P.  bank  and he   also  applied for  Kishan Credit Card loan .  But though the complainant  has  alleged  that  keeping him in darkness  loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed,  the evidence of  DW is that on the day of sanctioning of KCC  loan  of Rs. 24,500/- to the complainant  on  15/09/2012  the loan sanction letter was also handed over to him and the complainant accepted the same  by putting endorsement therein.  Also on the same day the complainant executed  various loan documents in favour of the  O.P.  for availing the said loan facility.  According  to  the  DW,  out of the  said loan an amount of Rs. 12,000/-  was disbursed  on 19/02/2013 and the remaining amount of Rs. 12,500/-  was disbursed on  22/02/2013  by crediting the same  in the loan account standing in the name of the complainant  and also  the complainant  himself withdrew  the said amounts in cash  by putting his signatures on the relevant withdrawal slips.  As  such,  it has been claimed by the DW in his evidence  that  the  complainant had full knowledge  about the said sanctioning of loan and  disbursement of the same.

                                                 Again though the complainant has alleged that  the  O.P.  closed  his  Savings Bank  account  and  did not update his  account book  but the version of  the DW is that  the  S/B  account of the complainant has not been closed till date  and  it  could not be updated when the complainant asked for the same as the account was dormant.  According to  DW,  at no point of time  the  O.Ps.  committed any disservice to the complainant.  Ext.-B  certified copy of  statement of loan account standing in the name of the complainant  supports the claim of  the  O.P.  regarding sanctioning  of loan and its disbursement. 

                                                       It  has  been claimed by the complainant in the case that  he did not receive  the  KCC loan which was allegedly sanctioned in his name. But the DW  in his evidence has specifically stated that  the complainant  himself withdrew the loan amount sanctioned to him  by putting his signature  on the withdrawal  slips.   It may be mentioned  here that  in the present case the O.Ps.  also filed a counter claim petition and  in support of the  said  counter claim  submitted  evidence on affidavit  alongwith some exhibited documents  including  Ext.-5 & 6 withdrawal slips.  It reveals from those exhibited withdrawal slips that  Ext.-5  is  in respect of withdrawal of loan amount of  Rs.12,500/-  and  Ext.-6  is in respect of loan amount of Rs. 10,800/-.  Though the case record  discloses the sanction of  loan of Rs.24,500/-  but  from the O.P.  side  withdrawal slips of Rs. 23,300/- only have been submitted.    It is the case of the complainant that  keeping him in darkness  the loan amount  was sanctioned  and  disbursed.  During the course of argument the learned counsel appearing for the complainant  also submitted that the signatures  appearing in  Exts.-5 & 6  in the name of  the  complainant   were not signed by the complainant himself.  But  in the present case the complainant side  has not taken any steps  for examination of those  signatures appearing in the name of the complainant  by any handwriting expert.  In  Ext.-5  there is  signature of  Forid Ahmed Laskar  while  Ext.-6 contains the signature of  Forid  Uddin Laskar.  In  other loan documents the name of the loanee/applicant  has been written as  Forid Ahmed  Laskar  and not as Forid  Uddin  Laskar.  On the other hand  from  Ext.-1  Savings passbook  and from  Annexure- 1 & 2  submitted by the complainant   it reveals that the complainant writes his name as  Forid Ahmed Laskar.  The  complaint  petition also discloses the name of the complainant as  Forid  Ahmed  Laskar.  Again  if we compare  the signature of Forid Ahmed Laskar appearing in Ext.-5  withdrawal  slip  with the  admitted signatures of the complainant  appearing  in  Annexure-1&2  and  in the complaint petition then we do not find major  dissimilarity.  But if we compare  in bare eye the signature Forid Uddin Laskar appearing in  Ext.-6 withdrawal slip  with the admitted signatures of the complainant as well as  with  the signatures  appearing in the exhibited loan documents in the name of  the complainant  then hardly we find any  similarity.  So  from the above discussions it is found and hold that  only  the withdrawal  of loan amount of Rs.12,500/-  by the complainant  vide  Ext.-5  withdrawal slip  dated 22/02/2013   has been proved in the case . 

                                             Again though in the present case the  O.Ps.  have  filed a counter claim petition praying for giving direction to the complainant  to  repay the loan amount  but the complainant has vehemently objected the said petition stating that the same is not maintainable.  However  in the  present case the  status  of  the O.Ps.  do not appear to be that  of a  consumer.   Under the circumstances the counter claim petition of the O.Ps. cannot be considered and the same is rejected.

In view of the above, it is found that there has been deficiency in service by the O.Ps towards the Complainant and as a result the Complainant had to suffer. Under the circumstances and also upon consideration of the materials on record, it is ordered that the O.Ps cannot recover the loan amount more than Rs.12,500/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Five Hundred) only from the complainant. However, the O.P. is entitled to recover interest if any, on the said amount. It is further ordered that the O.P. Bank shall also pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only to the complainant towards compensation for sufferance and towards cost of the proceeding respectively.

With the above relief the case of the Complainant stands partly allowed on contest and counterclaim stands/rejected. Supply free certified copy of Judgment to the parties.

Given under the hand and seal of the District 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.