Complainant Uttam Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that his complaint may kindly be accepted and the opposite party be directed to issue No Due Certificate to him. Complainant has further claimed Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of opposite party. He has also claimed Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the consumer of the opposite party as he was having Kisan Vikas Card No.626 and the opposite party had given the facility of KCC Limit amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant and the said KCC Limit has commenced from 30.12.2016 to 29.12.2011. It was pleaded that opposite party had given the facility of the said KCC Limit to the complainant as he was small farmer and complainant had paid sum of Rs.25,000/- on 07.01.2010, Rs.30,000/- on 07.12.2009 and Rs.5,000/- on 15.11.2009 to the opposite party. It was pleaded that in the year 2008, the Government had waived off the loan of small farmers and the complainant had also come under the said scheme being small farmer and he approached the then Manager of the Bank who had allured him that the Govt. had waived off the loan amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and the balance was Rs.1,14,000/- out of which Rs.60,000/- had already been paid by the complainant to the opposite party Bank and the balance was shown Rs.54,000/-. It was further pleaded that in the year 2012-2013, the Government had again waived off the loan of the small farmers and complainant being small farmer again approached the then Manager of the Bank who allured him that the Govt. had waived off his entire loan amount and there was no need to deposit any amount. Even many other consumers of the opposite party who were small farmers had also availed the facility of the said scheme of the Govt. It was also pleaded that now opposite party had come back from his promise/assurance and was not issuing No Due Certificate to the complainant on the pretext that some amount was outstanding against him which was totally wrong and due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite party complainant had suffered great mental as well as physical harassment from the hands of the opposite party, hence this complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and as such the same is liable to be dismissed and complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and had been filed by the complainant only to harass the opposite party and to burden it with unnecessary litigation expenses, therefore the opposite party claims special costs and damages from the complainant. On merits, it was admitted that complainant is the consumer of the opposite party Bank as he was having Kisan Vikas Card No.626 and was also admitted that opposite was given KCC Limit amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- which commenced from 30.12.2006 when he executed loan documents in favour of the opposite party and when he availed off the KCC Limit. It was denied that complainant was a small farmer. It was admitted that complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 07.01.2010, Rs.30,000/- on 07.12.2009 and Rs.5,000/- on 17.12.2009 by way of transfer in his loan account. It was stated that at the time of presentation of Union Budget on 29.02.2008, the Finance Minister announced the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme for the farmers and as per the debt waiver scheme 3 types of agricultural loan were to be covered under the scheme which were extended to three types of farmers i.e. Marginal farmer which means a farmer who is cultivating the land upto 2½ acres, small farmer who cultivates the land as owner or otherwise upto 5 acres and the third category was for other farmers which means a farmer cultivating the land as owner, tenant or share cropper, agricultural land of more than 5 acres. It was stated that complainant was owner in possession of the land measuring 51 Kanals 11 Marlas and as such he falls in the third category i.e. other farms. It was stated that as per the debt waiver and debt relief scheme in case of other farmer there will be one time settlement scheme under which the farmer will be given rebate of 25% of the eligible amount subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of 75 percent of the eligible amount. It was further stated that as per the debt waiver and debt relief scheme the eligible amount in the case of the complainant was Rs.1,53,115/- and out of this amount the Bank was to give rebate to the tune of Rs.38,279/- i.e. 25% of the eligible amount and as per debt relief scheme remaining 75% was to be paid by the complainant i.e. he was to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,836/- out of the total eligible amount of Rs.1,53,115/- but complainant had paid a sum of Rs.60,500/- towards payment of Rs.75% of the eligible amount. It was also stated that Bank was to pay 25% out of the eligible amount but even then the Bank also waived the remaining eligible amount also and total eligible amount was Rs.1,53,115/- out of which Rs.60,500/- was paid by the complainant and the remaining amount was paid by way of waiver by the Bank and after taking into account the eligible amount, the complainant was also to pay a sum of Rs.1,26,219/- with interest calculated on 31.03.2008 which he had got disbursed as a loan from the Bank but he had not repaid any amount and as per books of the Bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of business, a sum of Rs.4,05,026/- was due from the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A along with documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.

5. Sh.Parveen Kumar Manager had tendered into evidence copy of power of attorney Ex.OP-1, his own affidavit Ex.OP-2 along with documents Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.

6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some vital documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the OP Bank’s denial to issue the demanded ‘No Dues Certificate’ to the complainant who claims to have liquidated his Ag Loan O/s partially through self-repayments and in totality through debt-relief write-offs by virtue of the Govt. Agriculture Debt Relief Schemes.

7. However, the complainant has failed to prove the alleged liquidation through some cogent evidence in the absence of which his related depositions vide Ex.C1 amount to mere ‘bald’ statements. On the other hand, the opposite party Bank has produced complete details of complainant’s Ag Loan A/c along with its repayments, waive-off debits and outstanding amount along with the applicable Ag Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme Circular cum other evidence exhibited here as: Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 to successfully prove their contentions. It is also not understood as to what prevented the present complainant from producing any evidence of his loan a/c liquidation during the complaint proceedings.

8. We also find from the evidence as available on records that the complainant falls into the category of ‘other farmer’ since he holds more than ‘5’ acres of Ag Land but he did not deposit his requisite share amount as determined per the Debt Relief Scheme under which he claims liquidation. Under the circumstances we do not find any infringement of the complainant’s consumer rights hence no statutory merit in the present complaint.

9. In the light of the all above, we do not find the hue of actionable merit (under the Act) in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs. The complainant shall however be at liberty to avail himself of any other remedy of his choice/advice in law and proceeded as per the procedure prescribed in law.

10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

(Naveen Puri)

                                                                                  President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                (Jagdeep Kaur)

NOV. 28, 2016                                                             Member.

*YP*