The case of the complainant, in short is that during-2002 he had availed Agriculture loan of Rs. 24,000/- vide ref No. 12/AGL/WO-1 and Loan account No. 1579080027. Due to heavy loss of crops for years together, the complainant could not re-pay the loan amount till-2009. In the year 2009 in times of much hardship and taking hand loan, while the complainant visited the Bank to square up the loan, the Opposite Party disclosed that the above loan has been waived out by the government and accordingly the Opposite Party has returned the mortgaged R.O.R and agreement papers to the complainant. It is further case of the complainant is that though the above said loan amount has already been waived out, the opposite Party did not closed the loan account and demanded re-payment of Rs. 35,000/-towards outstanding dues of the loan account. Due to such illegal demand the Complainant deposited Rs. 3,000/- on 7.10.2012 under compelling circumstances. On the same day the Opposite Party directed to pay Rs. 32,000/- in order to close the loan account. The complainant contended that he is a small farmer having less than 2 acres of Land as share property of his father, as such he is entitled to get the benefit under the Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Due ti unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case against the Opposite Party.
Upon notice the Opposite Party appeared through his Advocate thereafter, he did not choose to file his written version and remained ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Heard the authorized agent appearing for the complainant at length. Perused the pleading and also gone through the documents on record. It is admitted fact that the complainant is a small/Marginal farmer and availed loan from the Opposite Party. It is not disputed that the Complainant has availed of Agriculture loan for 24000/- (Twenty four thousand) only form the Opposite Party the purpose cultivation. It is also not disputed that the complainant being a marginal farmer having less than 2 acres of land and the loan which are over due on 31.12.2007 and remaining unpaid until 29.2.2008 has already been waived out as per the Debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008 of Government of India and accordingly all the documents were returned to the complainant in due course of time. In course of hearing we have gone through the Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008. Under clause 3(5) of the Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008 the farmer has been classified in three categories in accordance with their possession/ownership of land i.e. Marginal farmers means those farmers cultivating up to 1(one) hector (A 2.5 acres), Small farmers are those cultivating up to 2(two) hectors (5 acres) and Other farmers means those cultivating more than 2(two) hectors (5 acres). As per the debt waiver & debt relief scheme 2008 those farmers to whom the loan was disbursed up to 31.3.2007 and those loans which are over due on 31.12.2007 and remaining unpaid until 29.2.2008 are eligible as per the guidelines. As per the above scheme the complainant is eligible to get relief under the above scheme.
In view of the above facts and due to fault on the part of the O.P demanding of Rs. 35,000/-and thereafter taking Rs. 3,000/- illegally and arbitrarily as per Exibit C/1 & C/2 from the complainant that too before the Permanent & Continuous Lok Adlat Judge, Malkangiri, the Opposite Party did not choose to file his written version rebutting the version of the complainant out of fear of discloser and admission of actual fact. Since the Opp.Parties did not file any counter to the version of the complainant, We feel that the version of the complainant cannot be disbelieved as there was no averment to the contrary or any evidence adduced by the Opp.Parties in rebuttal. The Conduct of the Opposite Party amounts to admission of the claim of the claimant.
.We have come across a decision delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 1992 (2) Civil Court Cases page-91 S.C in case titled Vidya Dhar Versus Munkif Rao & Another, wherein the Hon’ble Court held, if a party did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal, then adverse inference should drawn against the party for not rebutting the evidence.
We are fortified by a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the matter of Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dr. Zahid Hussain Gillari and others reported in 2003 CTJ 953(CP) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that “it is well settled that where the averments made in the complaint are un-rebutted, the presumption is that the averments are true and correct”.
In view of the above, we came to conclusion that the Opposite Party-Bank has committed gross deficiency in service towards the poor complainant who definitely put to financial loss, sustained mental agony, physical harassment and finding no other alternative compelled to knock at the door of Consumer Forum to get proper justice.
Further in this regard we are fortified by a decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2012 (4) CPR at page 147 ( N.C) in case of Punjab National Bank through its Manager versus Bhupinder singh where their Lordship at para 7 have held that :
“ The Banks are constituted to serve the people properly. The people of this country have reposed enormous faith in the banks…………………...
The higher authorities are prone to turn a Nelson’s eye to indiscipline in the Branch rather than tackling the issue by taking the bull by horns.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Matter of Gazhiabad Devlopment Authority Versus Balbir Singh reported in 1986-2004 CONSUMER 8287 (NS) held that :
“The provision of the Consumer Protection Act enables a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil. It will hopefully result in improving the work culture and in changing the outlook of the officer/public servant. No authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta 1994(1) SC 243.
The relevant portion is as under:
A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He, who is responsible for it, must suffer for it . ………………………………………..
The Hon’ble Apex court further observed that :
“It should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.”
In the result, the complaint of the complainant is fit to be allowed. Accordingly complainant is entitled to an appropriate order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order. Hence it is ordered :
ORDER
We hereby quash the outstanding dues of Loan account No. 1579080027 and the Opposite Party is directed to refund all the amounts received from the complainant on the loan account No. 1579080027 after the date of effect of Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008 which includes Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand) only received by them on 7.10.2012 against their demand of Rs. 35,000/- as per Exibit-C/2.
The Opposite Party is directed issue NDC in favour of the complainant against the above loan account No 1579080027 forthwith.
The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for harassment caused to the complainant and Rs. 3,000/- towards the litigation expenses recoverable from the erring officials after payment from Bank fund.
The above order shall be complied within 30 days on receipt of a copy of this order. In default, the Opposite Party is liable to pay Rs. 200/- per day of default payable to the account of state Consumer welfare Fund, Odisha.
Supply free copy to the parties as per rules.
Delivered in open forum on this 30th March,2015
