Date of filing – 21.02.2014

Date of Hearing – 28.11.2016

PER HON’BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

            In this appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the Judgement/Final Order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 55/2009 whereby the consumer complaint initiated by the Respondent Abdul Kader Mondal Sk. u/s 12 of the Act was allowed with a direction upon the OPs/Appellants to refund the fixed deposit amount of Rs.8,000/- along with interest thereon to the Respondent and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

          The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint stating that in the year 2002, he took an agricultural loan to the tune of Rs.16,000/- through Kishan Credit Card for purchasing of a pump-set from the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, Gorai Branch, P.O.- Gorai, P.S.- Anshgram, District – Burdwan.  Out of the said amount of Rs.16,000/-, the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,500/-.  Meanwhile the Government of India introduced “Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme of 2008-2009” and since the application is a small farmer (Prantik), his loan is recovered to be waived under the said Scheme and as such the Complainant has prayed for relief in respect of such loan and relief.  It is alleged by the Complainant that on account of debt the deposit certificate of Rs.8,000/- was adjusted with loan account.   Accordingly, the Respondent being Complainant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for refund of fixed deposit amount of Rs.8,000/- together with interest thereon and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

          The Appellants being OPs by filing a written version disputed the claim of the Complainant contending that the Complainant has obtained the loan of Rs.16,000/- with interest thereon @ 14% p.a. which was refundable by 16 instalments.  Since 31.12.2007 up to 29.02.2008, Complainant had not paid Rs.5,547/- and as such under the Scheme of the Government of India, Complainant was entitled to get relaxation of the same amount of Rs.5,547/- i.e. 100% of the unpaid portion and as such the same facility was accordingly afforded to the complaint on 05.01.2001 and the Complainant admitted the same by signing on the reverse side of the fixed deposit certificate and as such the Complainant is not entitled to any relief.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Judgement/Final Order allowed the consumer complaint, with certain directions upon the OPs, as indicated above which prompted the OPs to prefer this appeal.

          We have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant.  Despite receipt of notice, the Respondent has not appeared.  Under compulsion, the appeal was heard and proceeded to dispose of in absence of the Respondent.

          Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and on perusal of record, it would reveal that the Respondent has obtained a loan of Rs.16,000/- for purchasing the pump set on 30.01.2002.  In obtaining the said loan, the Respondent has deposited the fixed deposit certificate of Rs.8,000/- in favour of the bank which was to be matured on 16.04.2010.  However, the said fixed deposit amount was encashed as premature and the value of the said cash certificate was adjusted with the loan account.  On the reverse side of the deposited certificate, the signature of the Respondent appears which signifies the consent of the Respondent.

          In that perspective, there cannot have any hesitation to hold that the Appellants bank has acted on the expressed consent of the Complainant in respect of premature encashment of fixed deposit to the tune of Rs.8,000/- and the adjustment was made pursuant to the expressed instructions by the Respondent.

          Therefore, the Ld. District Forum has arrived at a wrong decision without appreciating the fact that the Complainant/Respondent himself was a consenting party and put his signature on the reverse side of the deposited certificate in order to enable the bank to adjust the amount of loan granted in favour of the Respondent.

          Accordingly, the impugned order being not consonance with the evidence on record, it is liable to be set aside.

          For the reason aforesaid, the appeal is allowed exparte but without any order as to costs.

          The Judgement/Final Order dated 26.11.2013 made by the Ld. District Forum in District Forum’s case No.55/2009 is hereby set aside. 

          Consequently, DF Case No.55/2009 stands dismissed.

          The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan for information.