DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 15 OF 2017
DATE OF FILING: 06/02/2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 27/06/2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Sri Surajit Khan, S/o- Sri Ajay Khan, Vill- Srikrishnapur, P.O- Sukdevpur, P.S- Bishnupur, Dist- South 24 Parganas, Pin-743503
O.P/O.Ps : 1) Smt. Veena Kumari, Manager, United Bank of India, Moudi Branch, Vill- Moudi, P.O- Daulatabad, Dist- South 24 Parganas, Pin- 743503
2) Chief Manager, Recovery United Bank of India, Baruipur, Dist- South 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700144
3) United Bank of India, Head Office, 11, Hemantu Basu Sarani, Kolkata- 700001
_____________________________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The nub of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant is that the complainant took a loan of Rs. 6, 72,210/- in the year 2005 under a scheme “Development of Commercial Horticulture through Production and Post-Harvest Management” through the UBI (O.P-1) on a fixed deposit of Rs. 80,000/- and also a security deposit of conveyance deed. Loan was sanctioned on 24.10.05 with coverage of an insurance scheme. But, the nursery started by the complainant was completely damaged due to natural calamity on 20.09.06 and 21.09.06. Complainant approached the O.P Bank for insurance claim. But, the O.P Bank declined to entertain the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground that the insurance of the complainant was not an agricultural insurance, but a life insurance of the complainant. Complainant also defaulted in payment of loan installment. The bank has received Rs. 1, 45,000/- from National Horticulture Board as subsidy of complainant and also Rs. 1, 68,000/- as subsidy for natural calamity from Central Government. After having received the aforesaid payments, the bank still demands Rs. 4, 79,200/- as outstanding amount from the complainant and to realize this money, coercive measures have also been adopted by the O.P Bank. The complainant now prays for release of his security deed and return of Rs. 7, 00,000/- sanctioned as a loan for renovation of nursery and also for compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The O.Ps have been contesting the case by filing written statement wherein it is contended, inter alia, by them that the case is not maintainable in law. The positive case of the O.Ps is that the complainant applied for a loan on 23.08.05 for Development of Commercial Horticulture through Production and Post-Harvest Management, i.e., hi-tech Horticulture Nursery before the bank. After investigation and verification by the bank, loan was sanctioned to the extent of Rs. 6, 72,210/- with certain terms and conditions. At the time of sanction of loan, the complainant willfully made a life insurance policy under TATA
AIG. The complainant is habitual defaulter in respect of payment of loan and he has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. No damage of crops has been announced by the Government in the area of the complainant. There is no merit in the case of the complainant and, therefore, his claim should be rejected with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in law?
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to relief or reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Complaint filed by the complainant is treated as his evidence, vide his petition dated 18.07.17. O.P has filed an affidavit and the same is kept in record for consideration. BNAs filed by the parties are also kept in record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no. - 1
It has been argued on behalf of the O.P Bank that the loan was taken by the complainant for Commercial purpose and as such the instant case is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. On perusal of the complaint, it is crystal clear that the complainant took the loan for nursery business. He took the loan under the scheme “Development of Commercial Horticulture through Production and Post-Harvest Management”. Admittedly, the loan was taken by the complainant for Commercial Horticulture; the purpose of the loan sanctioned by the O.P bank was Commercial Horticulture and, therefore, we found no difficulty whatsoever to say that the loan which was taken by the complainant from the O.P bank was a commercial loan. Now, the question which arises for consideration is whether a case is maintainable before the Consumer Forum in respect of this kind of loan. The case is maintainable before the Forum only when the transaction of the complainant is protected in the pigeonhole of section 2 (1) (d), CP Act, 1986. ‘Explanation’ appended to section 2 (1) (d) of the said Act is the said pigeonhole and it is provided therein that commercial purpose will not include a venture which is taken up exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. Coming to facts of the instant case, it is found that the complainant did not take the loan exclusively for purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. We dare say that there is no averments in this regard by the complainant in his petition of complaint. Regard being had to this aspect of the matter, we do say that the loan taken by the complainant was a commercial loan and that the instant case, therefore, is not maintainable in law.
Point no. 1 as referred to above is thus answered in the negative against the complainant. In view of the conclusion drawn under point no. 1, we do found that there is no necessity of further discussion of point no. 2 and 3.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but without any cost.
Let the copy of this order be supplied or sent free of cost at once to the parties concerned.
I/We agreed President
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
