Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/462/2011

Satpal S/o Babu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Distt. Co -operative PLAD Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sultan Singh

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                         Complaint No. 462 of  2011.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 10.05.2011.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 27.04.2016.

 

Sat Pal aged about 65 years son of Sh. Babu Ram, resident of village Galoli, P.O. Harnaul, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

The Yamuna Nagar District Primary Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., B.O. Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                                                                               …Respondent.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Kapil Rathi, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Sahab Singh Gujjar, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sat Pal 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 in the year 2004 he borrowed a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- and pledged his Agriculture Land as security, by executing mortgage in favour of respondent (hereinafter referred as OP Bank). In the year 2006-07, State Government and thereafter Central Government introduced loan waiver scheme for farmers and thousands crores of loan amount was waived off for the farmers. The rate of interest was also reduced on Agriculture Loan. Complainant falls under the loan waiver scheme of both the Governments and regarding this when the complainant approached the Op Bank then he was told that some benefits of loan waiving scheme will be given to him after receiving the letter from Government but the OP Bank has not provided the adequate benefits to the complainant as per loan waiver scheme. The complainant approached the OP Bank and demanded statement of account and copy of loan waiver scheme but the Op Bank instead of providing copy of the same issued a letter demanding Rs. 72938/- including miscellaneous charges. This figure is totally wrong and illegal which shows that OP Bank has not provided the benefits of loan waiver scheme to the complainant. Even, the OP Bank threated to sell the mortgage property if the complainant not paid the loan amount. Lastly prayed for directing the OP Bank to waive the loan by providing benefits of loan/ interest waiving scheme to complainant as per Government Scheme and provide clearance certificate for releasing land from the loan of the Op Bank alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. In support of his complaint, complainant filed his short affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of  pass book as Annexure C-1,  Photo copy of recovery notice amounting to Rs. 72,938/- as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Bank appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, no cause of action, complaint is beyond the scope of definition of consumer, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Bank. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that complainant has obtained the loan bearing No. 170 from the Op Bank for repair of house and in this account a sum of Rs. 51,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 30558/- as interest upto 31.08.2011 is still stand. Further, it has been submitted that complainant usually used to make delay in paying the amount of installments and accordingly he does not fall in the category described in the waiver scheme. So, no benefits of waiver scheme had given to the complainant. Instead of paying the due huge loan amount, the complainant has filed the present complaint only to extort money and for harassing the OP Bank. On merit, reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his version, the OP Bank tendered into evidence copy of account statement of loan account as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Op Bank.

4.                     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.

5.                     After hearing both the parties at length, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Bank as the complainant has totally failed to prove his case by filing cogent evidence. Even, the complainant has not disclosed the installments of loan paid to the OPs Bank. Meaning thereby, that he is defaulter of the OP Bank in question. Moreover, the OP Bank has mentioned in written statement that the complainant obtained the loan from the OP Bank for repair of House and he does not fall in the category described in the wavier scheme. Even the complainant did not bother to file copy of waiver scheme to prove that he was covered under that scheme or not. Learned counsel for the complainant totally failed to convince this Forum that in what manner the complainant was entitled to get the benefits of the waiver scheme i.e. the waiver scheme, if any, was applicable to the case of the complainant or not? From the perusal of the account statement, it is evident that huge amount was pending against the complainant till 31.8.2011.

6.                     In the circumstances noted above, as the complainant has totally failed to prove his case on merit. As such, we are of the considered view that, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Bank. 

7.                     Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 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: 27.04.2016.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

                                               

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA   )

                                                                                    MEMBER