Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/1399

DHARMAPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ALLAHABAD BANK - Opp.Party(s)

SH. P.N. SHUKLA

11 Nov 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1399 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 05.11.2015 passed in C.C.No.14/2014 by District Commission, Sidhi)

 

DHARAMPAL SINGH,

S/O SHRI INDRAPAL SINGH,

R/O VILLAGE-CHANDENIA, POST-CHURHAT,

DISTRICT-SIDHI (M.P.)                                                                                      … APPELLANT.

 

                       Versus

 

BRANCH MANAGER,

ALLAHABAD BANK,

BRANCH-BADKHARA, POST-BADKHARA,

DISTRICT-SIDHI (M.P.)                                                                                      … RESPONDENT.                               

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                     :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri P. N. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Manoj Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent.

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 11.11.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’)is directed against the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sidhi (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.14/2014, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

2.                Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who is a small farmer had obtained a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- in the year 2006 from the

-2-

opposite party/respondent-bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’) in order to purchase a tractor. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was entitled for loan amount waiver under the “Agricultural Debt Waiver And Debit Relief Scheme 2008’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘scheme’) of the Government of India. It is alleged that despite his eligibility he was not granted loan waiver as per the aforesaid scheme. On 05.03.2014, a sum of Rs.6,46,206/- were shown to be pending on him.  Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the respondent, he approached the District Commission.

3.                The respondent in its reply before the District Commission opposed the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that as per the scheme only overdue charges on the obtained loan amount could be waived off.  Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,38,440/-, which were overdue on the loan, were deposited towards the appellant’s loan account.  The appellant is not entitled to any further relief.

4.                Heard.  Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission has erroneously passed the impugned order without verifying the provisions entailed under the scheme of the Government of India.  When the appellant vide his application dated 22.07.2009 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTI’) had asked for

-3-

clarification, he was intimated that since the appellant is a small farmer, he is entitled for complete loan waiver.  He argued that on the above basis, this appeal deserves to be allowed.

6.                Learned counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned order argued that there was only provision for waiver of overdue amount and not for the waiver of outstanding loan amount.  The appellant has already been compensated as per provisions of the scheme and he is not entitled to any further relief.  He therefore argued this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7.                The scheme is available in the record of the District Commission.  It assigned in clause 5.1 of the scheme that “in case of small or marginal farmer the entire ‘eligible amount’ shall be waived.’ The ‘eligible amount’ is defined in clause 4 of the scheme and it refers to the instalments of the loan that are overdue.

8.                When we carefully go through the information provided in pursuance to appellant’s application under the RTI, we find that it is specifically mentioned that the appellant is a small farmer and an amount of Rs.1,38,440/- is overdue in his loan account number 400269, and he is entitled for waiver of the same. Clearly, evidence on the record shows that a sum of Rs.1,38,440/- was credited to the appellant’s loan account and therefore, he is not entitled to any further relief.

 

-4-

9.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we reach a conclusion that the District Commission, on due consideration of evidence available in its record of has rightly dismissed the complaint.

10.              As a result, this appeal which is devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

 

(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)    (S. S. BANSAL)     (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                  PRESIDENT                               MEMBER                   MEMBER