DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __52_ _ OF ___2018
DATE OF FILING :4.5.2018 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 4.9.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Sri Srikanta Ojha, son of Late Ananta Ojha, Vill + P.O- Gosaba, P.S Gosaba, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743370
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Branch Office –II, Padmapukur, Baruipur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Kolkata – 145.
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, P.O + P.S- Gosaba, South 24-Parganas, Pin-743370.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant being a marginal and small farmer took an agricultural loan amounting to Rs.10,000/- in the year 2001 from State Bank of India, Gosaba Branch i.e O.P-2 and a loan account being no. 01579082515 was also opened by the bank in the name of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- on 21.1.2008 in the said account to disburse the loan amount partly. In the year 2008, the Central Government was pleased to declare a scheme namely Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 , whereby the loan advanced to marginal and small farmers up to the limit of Rs.1 lac was waived. The O.P-2 prepared accordingly a list of exempted borrowers, as goes the allegation of the complainant and displayed the same on the notice board of O.P-2. The name of the complainant was also included in that list. The complainant, therefore, demanded return of Rs.10,000/- which had been paid by him to the bank to liquidate the loan amount taken by him. But the Bank did not return the said amount. So, he filed an application under R.T.I Act before the Bank i.e O.P-2 , requesting him to furnish the information on whether his name was included in the list of exempted borrowers prepared by the Bank in pursuance of the scheme of Central Government , as referred to above. But no information whatsoever was supplied by the bank. Now, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for return of Rs.10,000/- , payment of compensation etc. Hence, arises the instant case.
Written version is filed on behalf of the O.Ps and it is stated therein that the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of loan waiver scheme of the Central Government. They have admitted that the loan of Rs.10,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant, that the complainant has also deposited Rs.10,000/- with the Bank on 21.1.2008, to liquidate his loan liability. According to the Bank, the petition of complaint is unjustified , unreasonable, untenable and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief or reliefs . The complaint should, therefore, be dismissed in limini.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service for not providing information to the complainant under the RTI Act as alleged by the complainant?
- Are the O.Ps guilty of unfair trade practice for recovery of principal amount of loan from the complainant without affording the benefit of Central Government Loan Waiver Scheme, 2008?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT
Evidence on affidavit is filed on behalf of the complainant along with the copies of the documents relied on by him. No evidence whatsoever has been filed on behalf of the O.Ps. However, the BNA is filed on behalf of the O.P and the same is kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 ,2 & 3 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for the parties. Perused the petition of complaint, written version of statement filed on behalf of the O.Ps, the BNA and also the documents filed on behalf of the parties. Considered all these.
It is admitted fact that an agricultural loan of Rs.10,000/- was disbursed to the complainant by the Bank i.e O.P-2 . Also admitted is the fact that the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- with the bank on 21.1.2008. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that his loan being an agricultural loan has been waived by the Central Government under Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme , 2008 and, therefore, he is not required to make any payment for liquidation of the loan amount. He is also entitled to get back the amount i.e Rs.10,000/- from the Bank ,which he has already deposited with the Bank. According to the Bank, the complainant is not entitled to get benefit of the aforesaid scheme and, therefore, he is not entitled to the refund ,as prayed for by him.
In the context of submission and counter submission as pointed out above, it is to be seen whether the complainant is at all entitled to get benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme , 2008 , as pronounced by the Central Government.
The benefit of loan waiver has been extended to marginal farmers and small farmers and other farmers under Clause 2.1 of the said scheme of 2008 in respect of, inter alia, a “direct agricultural loan” and a “short term production loan”. ”Short Term Production Loan” means a loan given in connection with the raising of crops which is to be repaid within 18 months . It will include working capital loan not exceeding Rs.1 lac for traditional and non-traditional plantation and horticulture, vide Clause 3.2 of the said scheme. Clause 4.1 provides that the amount eligible for debt relief , as the case may be,(hereinafter referred to as the “eligible amount”) shall comprise of :-
- In the case of a short terms production loan, the amount of such loan ( (together
with applicable interest) :-
- Disbursed up to March 31, 2007 and overdue as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008 …………….
Clause 4.3 lays down that nothing contained in the scheme shall apply to any loan disbursed by a lending institution prior to March 31, 1997.
From the aforesaid provisions of the scheme it is crystal clear that the said scheme applies to a loan which has been disbursed from 31.3.1997 to 31.3.2007. The instant loan of the complainant has admittedly been disbursed in the year 2001. So, it comes within the purview of the aforesaid scheme. Further, another condition of application of the said scheme to a loanee is that the loan amount must be overdue on 31.12.2007 and must have remained unpaid till 29.2.2008.
Coming to the facts of the instant case it is found that the loan was sanctioned to the complainant in the year 2001 and that it has been overdue before 31.12.2007 and has also remained unpaid till 29.2.2008. It is the case of the complainant that he paid only Rs.10,000/- to the bank towards the repayment of the loan. The principal amount of loan was Rs.10,000/- and the liability of the complainant will be certainly much more than Rs.10,000/- if interest is added to the principal amount of the loan. So, taking into consideration this fact, we feel no hesitation to hold that the remaining amount of loan still remained unpaid till February, 2008 and the same has also remained unpaid till now, because the complainant has paid no more amount that Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Upon scrutiny of these conditions of the scheme it is found that the complainant is entitled to the benefit of the loan waiver scheme as all the conditions of the scheme are satisfied by the complainant.
It is the version of the complainant that he saw the name of him in the list of exempted borrowers displayed by the Bank on the notice board. The Bank has disputed and denied that such list was displayed by them on the notice board. Even, they have not filed any such list before the Forum to prove that the complainant’s name did not transpire in the list prepared by them. Clause 12 of the said Scheme provides for publicity of the scheme in each branch of every lending Institution. The Bank could have filed the list before the Forum to enable it to see that the name of the complainant is not included in that list. But such list has not been filed before the Forum by the Bank. Is it not suppression of vital document by the Bank? The purpose of such suppression is known to everybody. That document has not been filed before the Forum for the reason that the cat will be out of the bag. We cannot take it for granted that such list of exempted borrowers has not been prepared by the bank in pursuance of the loan waiver scheme, 2008. Such list has certainly been prepared by the bank in pursuance of the provisions of the said scheme. Regards being had to all these, we do say that there is a grain of truth in the version of the complainant that he saw his name included in the list displayed by the bank on the notice board.
The complainant filed application under RTI Act to know whether his name is included in the list of exempted borrowers. But no information under the said Act has been furnished to the complainant. Such information has not been furnished to the complainant only for the reason that the skeleton will tumble down from the cupboard if such information is furnished to the complainant.
Be that as it may, non-furnishing of information under RTI Act to the complainant by the Bank is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. Now, upon evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case as pointed out above, it is found that the bank has not extended the benefit of loan waiver scheme 2008 of Central Government to the complainant. What has the bank done? Instead of extending the benefit of that scheme to the complainant, they have received payment of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. They are not ready and willing to extend the benefit which the Government wants to give to the citizen of the country. Such highhanded act on the art of the Bank is an instance of unfair trade practice and also of lack of transparency. We, however, make no scruple to say that there is lack of expected transparency in almost each and every act of the Bank. Central Government is giving relief to the agricultural loanee by announcing loan waiver scheme, but the Bank recovers the loan amount from the loanee who is entitled to get the benefit under that scheme. Even the bank is found not to disclose before the loanee i.e the complainant the very fact of loan waiver scheme, extended by the Central Government. Is it not for the purpose of earning illegal benefit or profit? The object of such act of the bank is to earn illegal benefit which is contrary to the object of the Central Government Scheme as pointed out above. So, we do say,at the cost of repetition, that the bank has been guilty of unfair trade practice by misleading and misrepresenting the innocent loanee and that they will have to pay heavy compensation for this kind of unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.10,000/- paid by him to the Bank and also the compensation awarded by this Forum accordingly as hereunder.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the O.Ps to the complainant.
The O.Ps are directed jointly and severally to return Rs.10,000/- to the complainant with interest @10% p.a from the date of his deposit i.e 21.1.2008 till full realization thereof.
They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac jointly and severally for unfair trade practice adopted by them and out of that amount, Rs.30,000/- will be paid to the complainant and Rs.70,000/- will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund of this Forum.
All the amounts should be paid /deposited within a month of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the amount by execution of this order through the instrumentality of this Forum.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
l
