By H.B. Nayak, President
1. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this complaint are as follows:
Complainant No. 1 & 2 are the president and secretary of Radhakrishna SHG, Tikirapada, Dist.Boudh within the jurisdiction. The Self-Help Group (SHG) has a definite mission and vision and has been formed for maintaining livelihood by involving in weaving sector. To meet their credit requirement i.e. investment in weaving sector. O.P. No. 1 had sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,16,000/- to the said SHG in the year 2009-10.
It is averred that on Dt.31.03.2010, the Central Govt. and State Govt. have declared to write off the loan, accordingly steps are being taken up from the side of complainant by applying for waiver of said loan through proper channel. Further claimed that in all respect their SHG is fit to get the benefit of waiver of loan looking into the norms of the guideline, issued by competent authority. It is also pleaded that each member of the said SHG are entitled to benefit of loan waiver to the extent of Rs.50023/- and that for inaction and negligence, complainants are deprive of benefit of waiver of loan. On the other hand O.P. No. 1, deducted Rs.1800/- on 21.05.2021 and Rs.12000/- on 08.11.2013 and Rs.11,500/- on 04.09.2015 from the monthly deposit passbook of the complainants, illegally to which they are entitled to get return. It is also averred that O.P. No. 3 had sent a letter No. 5475, received on 27.12.2015, demanding payment of outstanding loan amount within 17.12.2015, which is strongly objected and disputed by the complainant. In the above circumstances the complainant sought for relief like write off of the entire loan amount and to refund of Rs.25,300/- with @ 18% interest p.a., till realisation and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- for cost of litigation.
2. Case of O.Ps.
In brief, stands of O.P. No.1 is that there is no cause of action and that the Lis is not maintainable and O.P. No.1 is not aware of any guidelines for waiver of loan by the Govt. and interalia, disputed all allegations of the complainants.
On the other hand, the Asst. Director of Textile, Boudh, who is impleaded as O.P. No.2 vide Letter No. 2152, Dt.01.11.2017, addressed to President, DCDRC, Boudh admitted that-
“As per the scheme, guideline of revival reform and reconstructing Handloom Sector, declared by the Govt., the individual handloom waivers, master waivers, SHG and GLS (Joint Liability Group) whose loan becoming NPA as on 31.03.2010 are eligible for waivers of overdue loan, maximum upto Rs.50,000/- per each individual beneficiary under the scheme”. Being a responsible officer, further admits that Radhakrishna Self Help Group (SHG) of Tikripada, Baunsuni is eligible to derive benefit on the basis of criteria set forth in the scheme in question. In this regard he has submitted Xerox copy of the scheme/guideline for reference by the commission and for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
At this stage, peruse the “guidelines for implementation of Revival Reform and Reconstructing of Handloom Sector”.
3. Having heard parties and perusing documents as available on record, we are recorded our findings as under-
(i) The complainants are consumers under the provision of the C.P. Act, 1986.
(ii) Not processing, etc in time for waiver of loan amount by O.P. No. 1 despite the fact that it is applied for through proper channel, amount to deficiency in service and unfair banking business practice mere pleading of not aware about the existence of guideline by banker is not excusable perse.
(iii) There is no evidence that the complainants are at fault as such they are disentitle for benefit under the scheme/guideline.
(iv) Revival, Reform and Reconstructing package for Handloom Sector is a joint venture sponsored plan scheme of Central and State Govt. It is stated that in the scheme 100% of principal and 25% of interest as on the date of loan becoming NPA and which is overdue on 31.03.2010, interalia SHG who have taken such loans for handlooms, weaving purposes funds will be provided for repayment and that overall ceiling of Rs.50,000/- per individual beneficiary as per funding under this scheme.
The scheme is self explanatory so far benefits are concerned which are all together not taken note of by O.P. No.1 to the prejudice of complainants.
(v) All weavers and ancillary workers involved in weaving activities would be eligible to take benefits under the scheme meant for them.
(vi) Peruse the special information, published by Govt. of Odisha a concerned Dept. (Dt.06.12.2012) meant for the benefit of weavers which supports the case of the complainant in all respect. Therefore, it can be conclude that not processing or sending loan waiver documents in due time by O.P No.1, amounts to deficiency in service as such actionable perse.
Taking not of the revival stands, documents and regard being had to the facts and circumstance further discussion will not serve any purpose, therefore, we are of the view that the complainants are to succeeded and O.P. No. 1 is held to be responsible for deficiency in service as such liable to compensate.
ORDER
In the result, complaint of the complainant is allowed in part against O.P. No.1 and dismissed on contest against O.P. No. 2 and 3. O.P. No.1 is directed to pay eligible debt waiver amount to complainants or else to write off the loan account of the complainants’ Self Help Groud and to refund a sum of Rs.25,300/- illegally taken towards repayment and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation.
Complaint is disposed of.
O.P. No. 1 is directed to comply this order within 30 days of receipt of the judgment, failing which exemplary cost will be imposed.
Pronounce in open court in the 14th day of March, 2023. Supply free copies to parties, if applied for.
