ORAL
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 68 OF 2020
Pratap Bhan Singh, Son of Sri Ajay Pal Singh,
Resident of Village & Post-Angadpur,
Tahsil & District-Eta.…. ….Complainant
VERSUS
Manager, Gramin Bank of Aryavart,
Branch-Chhchhaina, District-Eta, U.P. .… .….Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
Dated : 25-06-2024
ORDER
BY MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed under Section-17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant with the following prayer :-
“A. To direct the opposite party to pay (Rs 14,27,884/-) + (Rs 16,33,493/-)= Rs 30,61,677/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Sixty One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Seven) towards monetary loss accrued to complainant by not waiving off the loan and continued to receive money despite scheme of Central Govt. and State Govt.
B. To direct the opposite party to make the payment of Rs 10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.
-2-
C. To direct the respondent to pay Rs 50,000/- for cost of the case.
D. To pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
Admittedly the complainant has been sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- by the opposite party/ bank for purchase of a Tractor, which has been disbursed by the bank to the complainant.
The complainant, who is present in person has argued the case before this Court that the father of the complainant Sri Ajay Pal Singh and the complainant Pratap Bhan Singh were sanctioned KCC amount by the opposite party/ bank on 27-01-2007. The father of the complainant Ajay Pal Singh died on 15-11-2007.
The submission of the complainant is that both the loans were covered by the Government Scheme allegedly issued by the Government in the year 2008 as mentioned in para-6 of the complaint. It is also submitted that by the said scheme introduced by the Government, the farmers were protected and the payment disbursed in favour of farmers till 31st of December, 2007 was not required to repay the loan or KCC amount.
In para-8 & 9, the following contents are mentioned by the complainant :-
“8. That it is also relevant to submit here that in case of other farmer i.e. other than Laghu farmer, if he fails to repay the loaned amount that he will become ineligible for one time settlement after 30-06-2009 and bank can impose interest after 30-06-2009.
9. That on seeking information from the opposite party under Right to Information Act, 2005, opposite party has given totally false information on 19-01-
-3-
2009 that Rs. 58,022/- was in Tractor Loan A/c No. 13078041147607 and credit was made on 25-07-2008.
The complainant has also filed First Information Report against the opposite party/bank as well as also made an application under the RTI, 2005. It has also been submitted by the complainant that the complainant is covered under the waiver scheme under “Rin Mochan Yojna” (ऋण मोचन योजना) against the KCC loan amount, which has not been allowed by the bank, as such has been withdrawn illegally.
Having heard the complainant and after perusal of the entire material on record enclosed along with the complaint petition and the prayer made by the complainant, in my opinion the instant complaint petition is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not approached before this Court with clean hands.
With the above observation the instant complaint is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, is vacated.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
(JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR)
PRESIDENT
Ashish
Court-1
