Dated 25.04.2024

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of complainant/appellant for setting aside the judgment and order dated 17.07.2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Buxar in Complaint case no. 95 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the complaint case has been dismissed.
2. Earlier appeal was dismissed by this Commission by order dated 21.01.2017, however, complainant against order passed by this Commission preferred revision before the National Commission being Revision Petition no. 1163 of 2017 and by order dated 17.03.2022 revision was allowed and order dated 21.01.2017 passed by this Commission in Appeal no. 229 of 2015 was set aside and matter was remitted to this Commission to hear the appeal afresh and to pass a reasoned order after due appreciation of evidence on record.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case as discussed in complaint petition is that complainant is small farmer and took agriculture loan from opposite party no. 1/Bank to purchase a tractor along with trailer and cage wheel. Loan was santioned by Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Buxar/O.P. no. 1 on 26.10.2007 but subsidy amount was not paid. Marginal money of Rs. 80,000/- was deposited with O.P. no. 3. As surety for loan joint family land of 6 Bigha was mortgage with the bank.
4. It was further stated that Mahindra Tractor was supplied in the year 2007 by O.P. no. 3 but cage wheel and trailer were not supplied although registration fees of tractor and trailer were deposited.
5. In terms of  Central Government debt relief scheme, agriculture loan of small farmers were waived but loan of complainant was not waived. Notice dated 20.01.2014 for re-possession of tractor to recover the loan amount was issued to complainant. Further a notice dated 26.12.2014 was send for payment of outstanding loan amount.
6.  Loan was sanctioned on 26.10.2007 but after 6 years notice dated 20.01.2014 was send when recovery of loan had become time barred. Trailer, cage wheel, subsidy amount of Rs. 45,000/- were not given to complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant filed a consumer complaint case in the District Consumer Forum, against recovery notice as well as notice for re-possession tractor by bank (O.P) Buxar upon which notices were issued to opposite parties.
7. O.P. no. 1 and 2 (bank) in its written statement stated that complainant was delivered tractor, trailer and cage wheel and in token of said delivery complainant gave satisfaction certificate letter and only thereafter, price of tractor and other equipment were paid to O.P. no. 3.
8. O.P. no. 3 in its written statement stated that entire allegation are false. Margin money of Rs. 80,000/- was not paid to O.P. no. 3. O.P. no. 3 was paid only after delivery of tractor and other equipment to complainant which was acknowledged by him.
9. The District Consumer Forum after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record held that admittedly complainant took loan from O.P. no. 1 & 2 (Bank).
10. The District Consumer Forum held that satisfaction letter  filed by Bank establishes that complainant had received tractor, trailer and other equipment in good condition and same was accepted and acknowledged by him by signing satisfaction letter.
11. The District Consumer Forum held that debt relief scheme rules of the Central Government has been produced by Bank. Para 10 column 4 of which stipulates that only those loan will be remitted which were sanctioned till 31^st March, 2007 but complainant was sanctioned loan on 26.07.2010 as such complainant is not a beneficiary under said scheme and dismissed the complaint case, aggrieved by which present appeal has been filed by complainant.
12. Heard counsel for the parties and considered their submissions as well as material available on record and written notes of arguments filed by parties.
13. It is an admitted fact that complainant was sanctioned agricultural loan on 26.10.2007 by the bank. As surety for loan complainant deposited  title deed of joint family land. Complainant had to repay the loan amount (principal + interest) in 9 Year on half yearly installment basis as fixed by bank which was agreed by complainant.  
14. The impugned judgment and order requires no interference in appeal for following reasons:

1. Complainant was delivered tractor, trailer and cage wheel on 28.10.2007 and same were received and acknowledged by him in writing through satisfaction letter as well as on invoice and delivery challan dated 28.10.2007. Complainant never made any complainant anywhere that he had not received trailer and cage wheel as such his claim raised in complaint case filed in 2014 i.e after more than 7 years cannot be accepted.
2. Two documents placed before the District Consumer Forum Encl. A and Encl. B were sufficient to establish that complainant had received all the equipment and had also put his signature on both documents and same was not denied by complainant. Registration certificate of trailer is in the name of complainant as such delivery of trailer cannot be denied. Even otherwise claim with respect to year 2007 cannot be raised in 2014 and is time barred.
3. Claim of complainant that he had paid Rs. 80,000/- is baseless and without any foundation.  Complainant except making a bald statement has produced no evidence in support of such payment to O.P. no. 3. Moreover such claim being raised 7 years after sanction of loan and purchase of equipment is neither reliable nor trustworthy.
4. Complainant once admitting the loan amount and agreeing to repay loan amount with interest for which he entered into agreement with Bank is bound to repay the loan amount as per agreed terms and conditions and Bank is authorized to take steps for recovery of loan amount including repossessing the vehicle in case of default in payment of installments. Complainant had agreed to repay the loan amount in 9 years in half yearly installments of Rs. 16,666/- + interest on 26.10.2007 and is bound by it.  
5. The loan waiver scheme for farmer of Central Government was introduced by Central Government in the year 2008 but complainant has not produced a chit of paper that he approached bank authorities that he is also beneficiary under the scheme and his outstanding agricultural loan is required to be waived under the scheme.
6. There is specific finding recorded by District Consumer Forum with respect to waiver scheme. Exhibit F is debt relief. Scheme of Central Government, para 10 column 4 stipulates that only those loan will be remitted which was sanctioned till March, 2007 but in case of complainant admitted loan was sanctioned on 26.07.2010 as such complainant is not a beneficiary under the scheme.
7. Complainant has not controverted the finding recorded by District Consumer Forum in his appeal. Nothing has been submitted that finding recorded by District Consumer Forum is incorrect.

15. This Commission has examined and considered evidences placed on record and finds that the District Consumer Forum had meticulously appreciated the evidences on record and after proper and due consideration of materials available on record has arrived at a definite conclusion and this Commission in appeal concurs with the finding recorded by District Consumer Forum which has passed a reasoned, well discussed and well considered order requiring no interference by this Commission in appeal.
16. Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, if any, proceeding is initiated by bank to recover the loan amount from complainant it shall be open for the complainant to raise issue of limitation.

 (Ram Prawesh Das)                                              (Raj Kumar Pandey)                              (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                 Member                                               President,(J)

Md. Fariduzzama