Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1100/2010

Riyasat Ali S/o Ashraf Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

31 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                         Complaint No. 1100 of  2010.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 23.11.2010.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 31.05.2016.

Riyasat Ali (44) son of Shri Ashraf Ali, resident of VPO Bhambhol, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Bank of India, Branch Near Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
2. Bank of India, SCONo. 181-182, Sector-17,Chandigarh through its Zonal Manager.
3. Rajesh Kumar, Field Officer, Bank of India near Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar.  

 

                                                                                                                                                                                   …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Surjit Singh Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Nalin Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Riyasat Ali filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 2.                    Brief facts, of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant had availed Kisan Credit Card Limit of Rs. 1,84,000/- vide Account No. 672532100000247 from the OPs Bank. A scheme namely Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 was launched by the Government to help the small famers vide which the farmers/persons who is having less than 5 acres land and who has been coming defaulter in payment of loan, the loan of such farmers were to be waived off. After launching of the abovesaid scheme, the complainant approached the OP No.1 Bank and requested to provide the benefits of the scheme. The officials of the OPs bank told to complainant that an amount of Rs. 61000/- out of total loan amount of the complainant has been waived off as per scheme of the Government of Haryana and if the complainant deposited the remaining amount of Rs. 1,23,097/- with the OPs Bank, the OPs Bank will issue NOC/clearance certificate to the complainant. On believing the version of the OPs Bank, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 1,23,097/- with the OP No.1 Bank, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 1,23,097/- with the Op No.1 Bank on 22.06.2010. After depositing the amount, the complainant visited OP No.1 for obtaining the NOC/ Clearance Certificate but the OP No.1 Bank refused to issue the same and asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 61000/-, which was already stand waived off, if the complainant wants to get NOC/ Clearance Certificate. The complainant also moved an application dated 28.06.2010 to the OPs Bank to issue NOC but the OPs Bank has not done the needful. Lastly praying therein that the OPs be directed to issue NOC/Clearance Certificate in respect of his land mortgaged with the bank and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts and on merit it has been admitted that complainant has availed a loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- under Kisan Credit Card on 23.11.2002 but the complainant is a chronic defaulter in making the payment and his account was irregular till 30.06.2010. It has been further admitted that Government has launched a Debt Relief Scheme, whereas, the complainant was not a small farmer, he has land owned over 5 acres, because of the fact that he submitted an affidavit that he was owner in possession of land measuring 46 kanal 01 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 and mortgaged his land measuring 18 kanal 6 marlas against the said loan. So, he was not entitled to get the benefits of the scheme. It has been further stated that, however, as per scheme who were defaulting the amount till December 2007, the 25% of the amount which are in default in the year 2007 would be given relief, if the loanee make the payment of balance defaulted amount. In this case, an amount of Rs. 1,28,972/- was in default on 29.12.2007 and a Waiver of Rs. 32,243/- would be given to the complainant if he deposits the balance amount till 31.12.2008 but the scheme was extended time to time and interest was calculated upon his account from 29.12.2007 whereas, the complainant deposited Rs. 1,23,097/- on 30.06.2010 at that time a total outstanding was Rs. 1,84,575/-. Hence in this way, an amount of Rs. 61478/- plus interest is balance against the complainant, which he is liable to pay to the Bank. It has been further mentioned that because the complainant deposited the defaulted amount on 30.06.2010, amount of scheme of Rs. 32243/- could not be come in the account of the complainant as per Government Scheme, till date, whereas, the bank has already sent a proposal for relief of Rs. 32243/- to the Government in this case. In this way, the complainant is liable to pay the balance amount alongwith interest and other charges. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint as there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of OPs.

4.                     To prove the case counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as application dated 28.06.2010 as Annexure C-1, copy of account statement issued by OP Bank as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of the Debt Waiver scheme, 2008 as Annexure C-3 and information sought under RTI in respect of account statement etc. of other person Saleem son of Ashraf Ali as Annexure C-4 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence photo copy of loan receipt as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of account statement as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of affidavit of Riyasat Ali as Annexure R-3 and Photo copy of mutation letter as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that complainant was entitled to get the benefits of Debt Waiver Scheme,2008 launched by the Government of Haryana and draw the attention of this Forum towards the Waiver Scheme Annexure C-3. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that after calculating the entire amount as per Debt Waiver Scheme, the official of the OPs Bank told to the complainant that an amount of Rs. 61000/-, out of total loan amount, has been waived off and if the complainant deposits the remaining amount of Rs. 1,23,097/- with the OPs Bank then the Ops Bank will issue the NOC/clearance certificate to the complainant and on the assurance of the official of the OPs Bank, complainant had deposited the same amount i.e. Rs. 1,23,097/- with the OPs Bank but after that official of the OPs Bank refused to issue the NOC due to the reason best known to them and draw our attention towards the account statement Annexure C-2/R-2 from which it is evident that an amount of Rs. 1,23,097/- had been deposited by the complainant on 22.06.2010. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards an entry of Rs. 33903/- which was credited in the account of the complainant on 14.07.2008 on account of Debt Relief but this entry of Rs. 33903/- has been reverted/ debited again in the account of the complainant on 29.10.2008. Learned counsel for the complainant also draw our attention towards the information sought under RTI in respect of the account of another namely Saleem (Annexure C-4 to C-7) in which also an amount of Rs. 27808/- was credited in the account of that person Seleem which was later on reverted/debited on 27.09.2008. However, later on again the same amount of Rs. 27800/- was credited in his account on 11.05.2010 on account of Debt Relief and argued that when the OPs Bank has granted Debt Relief amounting to Rs. 27808/- in the month of May 2010 to that person Seleem then how the OP Bank can deny to grant the same relief to the complainant.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs Bank argued that as the complainant had not deposited the remaining amount as per Debt Relief Waiver Scheme in time, so, the amount of waiver scheme i.e. Amount of Rs. 33903/- has been refunded to the Government due to this reason no amount on account of Debt Waiver Scheme has been credited in the account of the complainant and till the date of 22.06.2010, complainant was liable to pay Rs.61,478.70 which was not paid by him. Hence, the Ops Bank has not issued the NOC/Clearance Certificate to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops Bank and prayed for dismissal of complaint and referred the case law titled as Ram Sharan Singh vs. State Bank of India, 2014(5) R.C.R. (Civil) Page 906 Punjab & Haryana High Court, wherein it has been held that A Farmer Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008- Recovery suit- Tractor loan-Appellant was granted a loan for purchase of a tractor on the basis of an equitable mortgage-he had agreed to repay the term loan advanced to him for purchase of tractor in 18 half yearly installments alongwith interest- he failed to adhere to the Bank’s financial discipline and committed breach in terms of agreement and failed to deposit the installments- Courts below decreed the suit for recovery of outstanding amount- Appellants contended that being a small or marginal farmer he was entitled to waiver of his loan taken for the agricultural purposes- Contention not tenable on the following grounds:

i)          The appellant does not fall in the category of small farmers as admittedly appellant was cultivating land more than 10acres.

ii)         Moreover, as per the aforesaid Scheme, a borrower has to apply for waiver of the loan with the Bank, however, in the instant case the appellant has failed to prove the aforesaid fact and in fact a finding has been recorded that he has not applied for any waiver of the loan.

iii)         Not only this, the Notification Ex. DA/1 (Scheme) remained unproved on record as appellant never turned up for further cross-examination, thus his examination in chief cannot be taken into consideration-Appeal dismissed.

9.                     Learned counsel for the OPs Bank further referred the case law titled as Dilla Ram Versus Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Bhadson (Karnal) 2012(2) PLR page 54: 2912(5) R.C.R.(Civil) page 187 wherein it has been held that Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, Paragraph 6.1-Waiver of loan- Entitlement to –Contention for appellant that under paragraph 6.1 of the scheme, plaintiff, even if he is not a small farmer, is entitled to waiver of loan to the extent of 25% or 20,000/- whichever is more- However, no such benefit was even claimed by plaintiff in the suit and the contention is completely beyond pleadings- Even otherwise, condition for availing of the said benefit under the scheme have not been fulfilled by plaintiff- He could get the said benefit by paying the balance 75% outstanding loan, but plaintiff did not do so- Consequently, plaintiff is not entitled to benefit under paragraph 6.1 of the scheme-Appeal dismissed.

10.                   After hearing both the parties at length, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Ops as from the perusal of the account statement (Annexure C-2) it is evident that a specific amount i.e. Rs. 1,23,097/- cash has been deposited by the complainant in his account on 22.06.2010 whereas generally a man deposits amount in round figure in his account, in the absence of any specific direction or necessity. So, from these facts, the version of the complainant seems to be genuine that the official of the OPs Bank had told to him that an amount of Rs. 61478.70 has been waived off under the Debt Waiver Scheme and he was asked to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 1,23,097/- and the same was deposited by the complainant in cash with the OPs Bank. Further, from the perusal of the account statement Annexure C-2/R-2, it is also evident that no amount on account of Debt Waiver Relief has been shown deposited on behalf of the Bank in the account of the complainant whereas it is admitted case of the OPs Bank that Bank has already sent a proposal for the relief of Rs. 32243/- to the Government in this case. From the perusal of account statement of another person namely Mr. Salim (Annexure C-5), it is clear that OPs Bank has given the Debt Relief to that person Salim in the month of May 2010. So, the version of the Ops Bank that the OP Bank has already returned the amount of Debt Relief Fund in the year 2008 to the Government is not tenable. Moreover, no cogent evident has been filed by the Ops Bank that in fact the amount of Rs. 33903/- Debt Relief Fund has already been refunded to the Government. So we have no  hesitation to hold that, amount of Debt Relief has been illegally withheld by the OPs Bank and has not credited in the account of the complainant on the same day when the Ops Bank received that amount from the Government under the Debt Relief Scheme.

11.                   Further, it is not the case of the OPs Bank that OPs Bank has not received any amount from the Government under the Waiver Scheme 2008 on account of the complainant and when the OPs Bank has already received the amount as per their admission in para No.5 of the written statement then how the OPs Bank can retain this amount with them. Meaning thereby that the version of the OPs Bank that complainant was not entitled to get any relief under the waiver scheme, 2008 is not tenable because if he was not eligible for the same then how the OPs Bank sent the proposal and got the amount from the Government on account of complainant. As the OPs bank received the debt relief amount from the Government in the year 2008 and after calculating the interest on this amount the official of the OPs Bank certainly calculated the specific amount i.e. Rs. 1,23,097/- which was asked to deposit and the same was deposited by the complainant, otherwise, we are of the considered view that there was no reason to deposit the specific amount in his account by the complainant. Further, the present complaint is pending since 23.11.2010 and as per the version of the OPs Bank an amount of Rs. 61478/- was due against the complainant but till date the Ops Bank has not taken any steps to recover the same from the complainant by way of any civil suit or otherwise. From this, it seems that in fact nothing is due against the complainant due to which the OPs Bank has not taken any steps.

12.                   From the other angle also, as per account statement (Annexure R-2), it is evident that total amount of Rs. 1,84,575.70 was outstanding against the complainant on 22.06.2010 out of which a specific amount of Rs. 1,23,097/- was deposited by the complainant. As per version of the Ops Bank, the complainant was entitled to get 25% rebate under the Waiver Scheme 2008 which comes to Rs. 1,84,575.70 x 25% =  46,144/-(round figure), further as the Government of Haryana released Debt Waiver Relief in the year 2008 to the Banks and that amount was lying with the OPs Bank as the same was not deposited/credited in the account of the complainant, so, some amount on account of interest on this amount might have also been calculated by the officials of the OPs Bank which may be near about 14000-15000, so, in this way, the officials of the OPs Bank might have asked the complainant to deposit a specific amount i.e. Rs. 1,23,097/- out of total amount of Rs. 1,84,575.70, after deducting the amount of rebate i.e. near about 46,144/- plus interest near about 14000-15000/-. Meaning thereby that an amount of Rs. 61,000/- was rightly waived off by the officials of the OPs Bank. Even the OPs Bank has not filed any cogent evidence or calculation sheet, on what date, month and how much amount had been received by the OPs Bank from the Government of Haryana under the Waiver Scheme,2008 on account of the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that OPs Bank has deliberately and knowingly has not credited the amount of Debt Relief Scheme alongwith interest in the account of the complainant at the appropriate time/stage which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and complainant is entitledfor relief. The law cited by the counsel for the OPs is not disputed but not applicable to the facts of the present case in that cases complainant not applied for the scheme under the Debt Waiver Relief Scheme to the OPs Bank and also not deposited his share 75% but in the present case, the complainant had deposited his share i.e. 75% on 22.06.2010 and further it is also not the case of the OPs Bank that they have not claimed any amount from the Government under the Debt Waiver Scheme, 2008 on account of the complainant.

13.                   Now a days, it has been noticed that the officials of the Banks are doing the bank business as per their own wishes and do not bother to listen the genuine requests of the general public and  also do not follow the guidelines issued by the RBI from time to time.   

14.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that nothing is due against the complainant and the OPs Bank has wrongly and illegally withheld the NOC/Clearance Certificate in respect of land of the complainant.

15.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs Bank to issue NOC/Clearance Certificate to the complainant within a period of 30 days without charging any amount in this account and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony harassment as well as litigation expenses after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 31.05.2016.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

                                               

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA   )

                                                                                    MEMBER