West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/76/2014

Sri Ajit Patra. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Banch Manager, Allahabad Bank. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

 

 

                                                             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and 

Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No. 76/2014

                                                        

1)Sri Ajit Patra & Sri Bijoy Patra both

S/o-Sri Jamai Patra of Vill & P.O.-Jotekanuramgarh, Paschim Medinipur…………..….……Complainants.

Versus

 

Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Kamalpur Branch, Kamalpur,

Paschim Medinipur..............................…..O.P. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Pulakananda Mondal,  Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr.  S. Roy,  Advocate.

 

Decided on: -22/06/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainants along with other co-owners own and possess a tank in plot no.353 measuring 87 dec. in Mouza – Jate Kanuaramgarh within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Government of West Bengal launched a scheme for development of fish cultivation and invited applications for long term loan.  The complainants submitted one statement alongwith certificate from Gram Panchayet Pradhan and certificate from local B.L. & L.R.O. and also submitted one Techno-Economic Feasibility report under prescribed form no.4527-fish dated 14/11/1980 of Fishery Department, Government of West Bengal and

Contd………………….P/2

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

the Fishery Extension Officer by a report dated 26/02/2009 vetted and prescribed the total cost of the project at Rs.2,29,621/- out of which the Fishery Extension Officer recommended the loan of Rs.1,62,220/- and the opposite party excepted the scheme under FFDA of the complainants and agreed to pay the loan amounting to Rs.1,55,000/-.  Opposite party sanctioned the loan and accepted the proposal for loan by putting seal and signature on the back side of the sanctioned plan which is a part of the application.  Unfortunately, the opposite party only paid Rs.80,000/- in two installments to the complainants and undertook to pay  rest amount of Rs.82,220/-  to complete the project.  In spite of repeated demands, the opposite party did not pay the rest amount and ultimately by a letter dated 6/11/2013, opposite party demanded to pay back the money.  It is stated that the opposite party most illegally demanded money by letter dated 6/11/2013 without complying the part of the said commitment.  The complainants could not complete the project for the latches of the O.P.-Bank though the opposite party was bound to fulfill their commitment.  Now the opposite party with a view to hide his own latches raised some fake demand which is illegal, baseless and beyond the provisions of law.  The complainants by a registered letter dated 18/11/2013, requested the opposite party to pay the rest project cost but unfortunately the opposite party turned down the request of the complainants  and falsely stated that the complainants revalued the scheme for Rs.80,000/-.  It is stated that the complainants never revalued the scheme and neither the complainants nor the opposite party was authorized to revalue the vetted scheme approved by the State Government.  The Bank authority accepted money which was paid by the State Government towards subsidy on vetted scheme of Rs.1,62,220. It is stated that the complainants at the time of sanction of loan were bound to put some signatures on some bank form and papers as dictated by the officer of the O.P.-Bank.  It is apprehended that the opposite party altered those documents in illegal manner with a view to defraud the complainants.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party to pay the balance sanctioned amount of Rs.82,220/- as per vetted  sanctioned scheme and for other reliefs.

                  The opposite party has contested this case by filling a written objection. Denying and disputing the case of the complainants, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the Fishery Extension Officer recommended the loan of Rs.1,62,220/- when the complainants applied for bank loan of Rs.1,55,000/- which was fixed by the discretion of the complainants.  As the project was found not viable so the then Bank Manager of the opposite party discussed about the said project with the complainants and then the complainants revalued the said project on a smaller scale and thereafter complainants filed one application dated 22/12/2009 for sanctioning loan of Rs.80,000/- and the then Manager of the Bank sanctioned Rs.80,000/- for the said project. The complainants

Contd………………….P/3

 

 

 

( 3 )

accepted that amount unconditionally and also accepted all the terms and conditions of the Bank in connection with the said loan.  It is stated that the intention of the complainants is not to make repayment of the loan as per terms and conditions and therefore they have filed this case deliberately with a view to avoid payment of the loan amount.  The opposite party therefore claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.  

        Point for decision

                             Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?  

Decision with reasons

                    To prove their case, the complainants have examined two witnesses namely Raju  Kanrar as P.W.-1 and one Chanchal Kumar Sinha as P.W.-2.  The documents relied upon by the complainants have been marked as Exhibit -1 series and Exhibit -2 series respectively.  On the other hand, opposite party has examined one witness namely Pawan Deep Singh as P.W.-1.  During the cross-examination of P.W.-1 one document has been marked as Exhibit- A on behalf of the opposite party and during the evidence of O.P.W.-1,  one signature with endorsement on Exhibit –A has been marked as Exhibit-A/1.

                  Admittedly, the complainants jointly applied for a loan under the scheme for development of fish cultivation in respect of their tank in plot no.353 and the Fishery Extension Officer, Daspur Development Block forwarded the said application of loan to the opposite party with recommendation for sanction of  loan of Rs.1,62,220/-.  According to the complainants, on basis of such recommendation the opposite party-bank accepted the said scheme under FFDA and agreed to pay the loan amount of Rs.1,62,220/- but in spite of that opposite party-bank only paid Rs.80,000/- as loan to the complainants in two installments  and they undertook to pay the rest amount of Rs.82,220/- to the complainants for completing the project.  Further according to the complainants, inspite of repeated demands, the opposite party-bank did not pay the rest amount of loan of Rs.82,220/- and hence the complain.  As against this, it is the case of the opposite party that although the Fishery Extension Officer recommended the loan of Rs.1,62,220/- but since the project found not viable so the then Branch Manager of the opposite party-bank discussed about the said project with the complainants and then the complainants revalued the said project on a smaller scale and thereafter the complainants  filed an application dated 22/12/2009 for sanction of loan of Rs.80,000 and accordingly opposite party-bank sanctioned Rs.80,000/- and the complainants accepted the said amount.  Further according to the opposite party, the complainants have filed this case deliberately with a view to avoid repayment of the loan.

Contd………………….P/4

 

 

 

 

( 4 )

                        From the loan application (Exhibit-A) series, we find that the Fishery Extension Officer, Daspur –II  Development Block recommended Rs.1,62,220/- as loan for sanction in favour of the complainants but the complainants produced no document to show that the opposite party-bank sanctioned the said amount of Rs.1,62,220/- which was recommended by the Fishery Extension Officer.  On the contrary, we find from Exhibit-A and Exhibit-A/1 that the then Manager of the opposite party –bank sanctioned Rs.80,000/- as Fishery Loan in favour of the complainants.  At the time of cross-examination of OPW-1, who proved the said endorsement of sanction of loan by the then Manager with signature, it was suggested on behalf of the complainants that the said endorsement of sanction was fraudulently prepared by the opposite party-bank which O.P.W-1 denied.  Complainants produced no cogent evident to show that the said sanctioned note (Exhibit-A/1) was fraudulently prepared by the Bank Authority and to show and to prove that the said sanction note was subsequently prepared by the opposite party-bank.  We have already stated that the complainant produced no document to show that the bank authority sanctioned Rs.1,62,220/- as Fishery Loan in favour of the complainants.  So relying upon Exhibit-A and A/1, we can safely hold, opposite party-bank sanctioned Rs.80,000/- as fishery loan in favour of the complainants and therefore they are under no obligation to pay the alleged balance amount of loan of Rs.82,220/- to the complainants,  as prayed for. 

                        In view of our above discussion we are of the opinion that the complainants have failed to prove their case and they are therefore not entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for.  The petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                      that the complaint case no.76/2014  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                                     Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

             

Dictated and Corrected by me

      Sd/-B. Pramanik.         Sd/- D. Sengupta.       Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.   Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

               President                          Member                            Member                  President

                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur