04.11.2015 Present:- Sh.Gurwinder Singh, complainant in person.
Partly heard on the question of admission. The complainant has mention in this complaint that vide order dated 2.9.2015 during arguments, he has referred to one order dated 16.3.2015 passed in his another complaint titled as Gurwinder Singh Vs. Manager, Central Co-operative Bank Limited. Let both file be put up after lunch.
(Jarnail Singh) (Sukhwinder Kaur) (M.P.S Pahwa)
Member Member President
4.11.2015 Present:- Sh.Gurwinder Singh, complainant in person.
Arguments heard. At the top of the present complaint, the complainant has mentioned that it is amended as directed vide order dated 2.9.2015. Due to this reason, file decided on 2.9.2015 was also got put up.
A perusal of this record reveals that the complainant filed earlier complaint on the same matter, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 2.9.2015. Therefore, the plea of the complainant that this complaint is amended vide order dated 2.9.2015 is not correct.
The complaint is not happily drafted to convey the proper grievances of the complainant. From the oral submissions of the complainant, it is made out that his case is that on 26.8.2008, the Central Government circulated regarding loan waiver of 4,30,00,000/- farmers. The complainant has also availed loan limit to the extent of Rs.20,000/- before the announcement of waiver. The case of the complainant is that he is not given this waiver. The complainant has produced on record one pamphlet whereby it is conveyed that from that day up to 30.6.2008, the list of the farmers entitled to benefits of this scheme will be displayed before banks/co-operative societies. The complainant has also placed on record one letter dated 12.3.2008 addressed to The Manager, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. regarding getting of full loan concession in his case. The complainant has also placed on record another copy of summons issued by inspector as arbitrator from the office of Co-operative Society. This notice was also relating to his loan case. The complainant was asked to appear before Arbitrator on 29.5.2009. Therefore, the documents produced by the complainant himself prove that he was aware in the year 2009 as well as 2010 that he is not given benefits of debt waiver. The complainant got cause-of-action from the date of knowledge regarding non-grant of benefits under the scheme. This complaint is filed on 23.10.2015. The complaint is patently time barred.
Although, the complainant has not disclosed about his earlier complaint filed on 2.3.2015, but he has himself shown the copy of order dated 16.3.2015. On production of copy of order, the record of earlier complaint (CC No.61 of 2015) was also ordered to be put up. A perusal of this file also reveals that the complainant had also filed earlier complaint on the same matter, which was returned to him on 16.3.2015 with the observations that the complaint is not maintainable. Despite this fact, the complainant has filed again this complaint.
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is not admissible being time barred and not maintainable. As such, it stands dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced:-
04.11.2015
(Jarnail Singh) (Sukhwinder Kaur) (M.P.S Pahwa)
Member Member President
