PER HON’BLE M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) is to the order dated 30.08.2012, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 172 of 2012. By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Birbhum(Suri) (in short “the District Forum”) regarding deficiency of service on behalf of the Petitioner herein and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”).

2.       The facts in brief are that the Complainants were granted agricultural loan of ₹93,500/- on 02.01.2002 by the Bank to enable them to purchase a tractor. The Complainants had to keep fixed deposit worth ₹25,000/- with the Bank. It was averred that out of the loan amount the Complainant repaid ₹65,000/- by December, 2007. In the year 2008, the Central Government introduced Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme. The Complainants were eligible for Debt Relief under that Scheme and they requested the Bank to settle the matter. Despite a legal notice and repeated requests the Bank did not respond. Hence the Complainants approached the District Forum seeking  direction to the Bank not to demand the loan amount and interest thereon if any, to release the fixed deposit amount of ₹25,000/- with interest accrued thereon and to pay compensation of ₹50,000/- along with costs of ₹20,000/-.

3.       The Bank filed their Written Version admitting grant of loan and averred that according to the Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme, 2008, the Complainants were eligible to get maximum benefit of 25% of the default amount/ installments or ₹20,000/- whichever was higher. Accordingly ₹20,000/- was sanctioned as relief in favour of the Complainants with the pre-condition that the entire balance minus the said relief had to be repaid as a onetime settlement. The Complainants were asked to avail this benefit after repaying the total dues, but they did not turn up. Subsequently, the relief amount of ₹20,000/- was refunded to the Government as per circular dated 18.08.2010 and hence there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.

4.       The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and also the cross examination of the Branch manager of the Bank, allowed the Complaint in part directing the Bank not to issue any demand notice as the Complainants were not liable to repay any further amount in connection with the loan account and they have directed the Bank to issue a certificate to the effect that the loan has been waived and specifically mention the eligible amount that has been waived. The fixed deposit was directed to be released in favour of the Complainants together with the accrued interest. The Complainant was allowed with cost of ₹2,000/-.

5.       The District Forum while allowing the Complaint had taken into consideration clauses 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 of the circular which defined ‘Marginal Farmers’, ‘Small Farmers’ and ‘Other Farmers’ respectively.  As the first Complainant has only 57 cents of land and other member have in all 131 cents of land, they fall in the category of ‘Marginal Farmer’. As per clause 5.1, in case of Small or Marginal Farmers the entire eligible amount has to be waived.

6.       On an Appeal preferred by the Bank, the State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum.

7.       Heard Respondents, who appeared in person and submitted that they are small farmers and are in financial difficulties and sought for dismissal of the Revision Petition. Despite service of notice none appeared for the Petitioner. The matter was taken up on the second call still there were no representation on behalf of the Petitioner and therefore the matter is being disposed of on merits.

8.       It is an admitted fact that the Complainants availed Agricultural Loan of ₹93,500/- for purchasing a tractor; the said loan amount along with interest thereon @ 14.5% p.a. was to be repaid in half yearly installment @ ₹10,500/- each; the loan was sanctioned in the year January, 2002; the number of installments for recovery of principle amount was nine in number and the loan was scheduled to be repaid by 30.06.2006. It is also not in dispute that the Complainants repaid ₹65,000/- up to 27.12.2007 and the balance amount including over and above installments together with interest was ₹98,388/- as on 28.12.2007, which was due for repayment. The statement of account shows that the balance accumulated interest was ₹1,13,491/- up  to 29.12.2008. We do not see any illegality in the finding of the fora below that the Complainants fall in the category of Marginal Farmers and that they were sanctioned investment loan for direct agricultural activities vide Debt Waiver Scheme dated 23.05.2008. A brief perusal of clause 4.1 (b) (i) of the said circular shows that the eligible amount comprises of the installments of investment loan together with interest thereon when the loan was disbursed up to 31.03.2007 and overdue as on 30.12.2007 and remaining unpaid until 29.02.2008.

9.       A perusal of the record shows that the Complainants’ loan was sanctioned prior to 31.01.2007 and they repaid a major portion of the loan amount up to 27.12.2007, still ₹98,388/- was due by them for repayment. Such amount represents overdue installments with interest up to 31.12.2007 and the said amount remained unpaid as on 29.02.2008. Both the fora below had rightly relied on clause 5.1 of the circular, which states that in the case of Small and Marginal Farmers the entire eligible amount shall be waived. Keeping in view the fact that there is an amount remain unpaid as on 29.02.2008; that the Complainants are Marginal Farmers eligible to get the benefit of Debt Waiver And Debt Relief Scheme in respect of the entire balance as it stood on 31.12.2007 and remained unpaid until 29.02.2008, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent finding of both the fora  below to warrant any interference in our limited revisional jurisdiction as envisaged by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (11) SCC 269.

10.     It is also not out of place to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Smt. Khazani & Anr.  has laid down as follows:

“13. Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.”

11.     Apart from the fact that both the fora below have given concurrent finding of deficiency of service, the amount involved is also meagre and hence we are of the view that the Petitioner Bank ought not to have relegated such a trivial matter.

12.     For all the aforenoted reasons, this Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly, however no order as to costs.