Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 30.08.2016

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty thousand only ) as compensation.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty thousand only ) for economic loss and mental agony.
3. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five thousand only ) as Litigation costs.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

It is the case of the complainant that he has taken loan from opposite party amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchasing the cows on the interest of 17% per annum after mortgaging 5 Acre 2.5 decimals of land for the period of 5 years. The yearly installment of aforesaid loan was fixed as Rs. 16,046/- and thereafter a bond was executed between the complainant and the Bank. It is further stated that after receiving the loan he requested in writing to the Branch manager, Bihar State Co – operative Land Development bank for purchasing the cows but he advised the complainant to purchase the cows himself. Thereafter he went to Punjab and purchased 10 cows after paying total Rs. 47,346/- on 02.03.2000 and thereafter in transportation of the aforesaid cows the complainant has to spent Rs. 40,000/- and he had also taken transit insurance for the purpose of carrying the aforesaid cows. Thereafter complainant informed the Branch manager, Bihta of the aforesaid bank and requested him to get the aforesaid cows insured. He had also requested the field officer for the same but they did not take any interest and as such the aforesaid 10 cows could not be insured. Apart from the aforesaid fact, the complainant has to spent Rs. 25,000/- in construction of shed and other facilities for keeping the cows. Unfortunately, on 22.02.2000 some of the cows got ill and the complainant informed the matter to Branch Manager, Bihta for getting them treated but no action was taken by Branch Manager and as such within a period of 8 months all cows died. The complainant got treated the aforesaid cows from his own level by veterinary doctor but the cows could not be saved and even after death of cows when he requested the opposite party no. 3 ( Branch manager, Bihta of the aforesaid bank) to get them for post mortem but he did not take interest. However the complainant got the P.M. report prepared by veterinary doctor.

It has been further asserted by the complainant that despite depositing of Rs. 5,000/- on 30.06.2000, the cows could not be insured due to callous attitude of the opposite parties.

It appears that on 15.09.2013 a letter appears to have been addressed to the forum stating therein that as the complainant is share holder of the Bank and the bank has been registered with Bihar and Orissa Co – operative act hence this forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case. With this letter certain documents have been annexed which have not been affidavited. However a rejoinder dated 22.04.2004 has been filed by the complainant stating therein that the complaint is maintainable under the law and repeating the fact of the original complaint petition which is in Hindi. However it appears that after hearing the parties this forum has admitted the case and bank has filed a rejoinder which has been affidavited and as such it appears to be written statement as it is affidavited and para wise reply of the fact stated in the complaint has been answered. At this juncture it is worth to be mention that no any reply (rejoinder) of the aforesaid rejoinder ( written statement ) of the opposite party no. 3 appears to be have been filed by the complainant.

The opposite party in Para – 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the rejoinder has completely denied the allegation of the complainant that he had given information to opposite party no. 3 with regard to purchasing of the cows and submitted the money for the purpose of insurance. It has been also asserted that complainant never informed about the death of the cows in year of 2000 nor he has deposited any copy of P.M. report to the respondent rather he had purchased the cows himself and approached this forum after the certificate for realization of the loan has been filed. Thus the opposite party has denied all the allegation of the complainant and the aforesaid denial of the opposite party no. 3 had not been repudiated by the complainant by filing appropriate application with relevant documents.

Certain photocopy of the letters sent to opposite party no. 3 have been filed in this complaint but it is not a registered letter and there is no evidence that aforesaid letters were received by opposite party no.3.

It goes without saying that this forum has no jurisdiction to decide disputed facts. Apart from this the certificate proceeding against complaint is continuing.

However it is open to the complainant to take appropriate steps by filing appropriate application before the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance as we have not decided this case on merit.

For the discussion made above this complaint stands dismissed but without costs.

                             Member                                                                              President