Hob'ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The pith and substance of the complaint case is that the Complainant Manir Uddin Miah is the Chairman of Tantubay Samabay Samity Ltd., Dinhata I & II Block, Babupara, Dinhata. The OP-1 Branch Manager, Dinhata State Co-operative Bank, Cooch Behar and OP-2 Regional Manager, State Co-operative Bank, Cooch Behar are within the jurisdiction of this Commission. A Samabay Samity was formed with some active members for business purpose to earn their livelihood for self-employment after borrowing money from bank namely Tantubay Samity, Dinhata I & II. The Complainant intended to borrow from the OP Bank a large sum of amount vide Ref No. Loan/04/COB/RO/11-12 dated 19.04.2011 to carry on their productivity. Thereafter the Complainant repaid the loan on instalments along with interest and the Samity started production as per demand of the market including sale thereof for earning their livelihood. At the time of taking the loan, the OP Bank assured the Complainant that they would render proper service to the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant is a consumer. Instalment of the loan along with interest had been completed by paying of from the CC Weavers (Current) Account bearing No. 1293550310111011. Finally, Rs. 60/- only was outstanding as on 22.03.2016 as per the statement of OP-1. Meanwhile an order was published by the Additional Development Commissioner (Handloom), Ministry of Textile, Govt. Of India by their Order No. 6/2/99/DCH/2015-16/GHDS/NIMRC/15622-1702 dated 13.11.2015 which was received by the Directorate of Textile, Govt. of West Bengal on 27.11.2015. It was written there that, “Regarding waiver of interest in the revised guidelines issued by this office vide letter No. 6/2/99/DCH/2013-14/DHDS dated 27.09.2013 for implementation of Revival, Reform and Restructuring package for Handloom Section”. The Complainant followed his list of interest from the ambiguous statement issued by the OP Bank wherefrom it was seen that debit interest had been deducted from 31.08.2013 to 29.02.2016. The Complainant immediately met with the OP-1 & 2 as per description of the aforesaid letter and discussed the matter. The Complainant claimed a guideline i.e. crystalline statement of loan, liquidation from OP-1 but they did not provide the same properly to the Complainant. Thereafter the Complainant submitted a letter to the OP and the Development Officer (Handloom), Cooch Behar for proper papers of liquidation on 30.10.2017 which the OP received. But they did not issue any such statement to the Complainant. On 30.10.2017, the Complainant served a legal notice to the OP through his Advocate on 30.10.2017 for obtaining loan account statement which they received but did not supply the same. Therefore the Complainant is facing irreparable loss and injury which caused harm to his business. Such demeanour on the part of the OP amounts to mental pain and agony and loss. The cause of action arose on 27.11.2015 and on subsequent dates which is still continuing. The Complainant therefore prayed for an award against the OP for Rs. 50,000/- towards mental pain and agony, Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
Both the Ops contested the case by filing written version wherein all the major allegations are denied and raised question as to the maintainability of the case. The positive defence case of the Ops in brief is that, the Ops are dealing with public money as per the prescribed norms and rules. As the Complainant had allegedly completed the payment of interest the Complaint would lie to the appropriate department and not with this Forum (Commission?). Had the Complainant any grievance regarding the ambiguous statements, they ought to have taken steps within reasonable period from 29.02.2016. Non-action by the Complainant for long period till March, 2018 is a ground to defy the claim of the Complainant. The Complainant knowing fully well that it has no remedy in the present Forum/Commission did not file any complaint earlier. The only remedy if any lies, that should be filed before the body under West Bengal Co-operative Society Acts & Rules. There is no cause of action. The Ops claimed that the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The nature of the dispute, vis-à-vis the pleadings of the parties demands for ascertainment of the following points for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the present case is legally maintainable and this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain this case?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The OPs challenged the jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain this case on the ground that this case is barred under Section 102 (4) of West Bengal Co-operative Society Act.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain this case. In support of his submission, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant filed a case law downloaded from internet which was the subject matter of F.A. 225/2010 decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai.
As per the said decision, Hon’ble State Commission SCDRC, there is no specific bar from filing the complaint before the Consumer Forum on the ground that Section-3 of the CP Act provides the relief available under the CP Act is, in addition to other reliefs available elsewhere. There was a time when it was barred but now the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the decision of the State Forum, Chennai is not applicable here because under Section 102(4) of the Co-operative Societies Act, the jurisdiction of this Commission has been specifically barred.
Let us have a close reading of the said provision of law. As per Section 102(4) of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, any civil court of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum shall not have any jurisdiction to try any dispute as mentioned in Sub-Section-1.
If we read the Sub Section-1, it would be found that the said restriction relates to some dispute if it arises among members, past members, persons claiming through members between the co-operative society and its board or any past board or any officer, agent or employee or between two co-operative societies and a liquidator or between a co-operative society and its financing bank.
In fact, the present dispute is mainly in respect of non-implementation of a Government Circular whereby interest on the loan money is claimed to have been waived by the Government.
Even for the sake of argument, if it is presumed that Section 102(4) of West Bengal Co-operative Society Act restricts the jurisdiction of this Commission, yet the decision of Hon’ble National Commission acts as a rider against the said restriction. In a decision of a case being Revision Petition No. 1337 of 1997 reported in 1986-2002 Consumer 6504 (NS) wherein it was held that jurisdiction of the District Forum was not barred even though there is a dispute covered under any state Co-operative Society Act. In another case, being Petition No.823-826 of 2001 between Smt. Kalabati and others vs. M/S United Vaish Co-operative thrift and Credit Society Ltd. held that, jurisdiction of District Forum is not barred despite having the dispute covered under State Co-operative Society Act.
Thus in view of the specific verdict of the Hon’ble National Commission as discussed herein above, this Commission comes to the finding that the present case is not barred by Section 102(4) of West Bengal Co-operative Society Act.
Accordingly Point No. 1 is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.2 & 3.
Both the points relate to the question as to whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Ld. Defence Counsel at the threshold raised a question as to the identity of the Complainant and further submitted that the Co-operative Bank has already been closed.
So far as the pleadings of the parties are concerned, the Complainant seems to have filed this complaint as a Chairman of the Dinhata-I & II Tantubay Samabay Samity. Although it is the defence case, challenging his identity, yet there is no cross-examination by the OP Bank in this respect. The Complainant adduced evidence in the form of evidence on affidavit. The OP filed questionnaires on 16.03.2021 but he did not raise any question regarding the identity of the Complainant. Therefore, the specific claim of the Complainant that he filed the case as a Chairman stands proved through his evidence on affidavit which could not be discarded by cross-examination.
The Complainant in order to substantiate the case, proved some documents being Annexure-A to E/2. Annexure-A is the statement of account wherefrom it is revealed that loan was regularly repaid to some extent. Annexure-B is the overdue statement as on 31.03.2010 for the Complainant to the tune of certain amount as per the complaint. Annexure-A/3 clearly reveals that a sum of Rs. 60/- was outstanding.
The Complainant claimed the statement of overdue from the Complainant’s Co-operative Society for which he demanded proper statement of account, but the OP did not supply it.
The Complainant further alleged that an amount of excess interest has been deducted from the Complainant by the OP against which he submitted letter on 21.03.2016 to the tune of Rs.7,76,692/.
The OP also could not file the statement of account against the overdue from the Complainant. Therefore, the allegation of the Complainant has specific substance.
The Complainant further substantiated the notification of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Textile (Handloom) being Annexure-C wherefrom it is revealed that there is specific Circular vide Notification No.6/2/99/DCH/2015-16/DHDS/NIMRC/1562-1702 dated 13.11.2015 wherein there is waiver of interest in the revised guideline.
There is no denial by the OP that there was no such notification or Circular. Accordingly, the Complainant comes within the perview of the said notification and the OP has an obligation to carry out the said notification. The OP however evasively defended the said contention solely on the ground that the dispute would lie to the appropriate department and not with this Forum.
The OP also did not cross-examine to the Complainant on that point.
The Complainant however, categorically replied in cross-examination about the said notification wherein the liability of the Complainant has clearly been claimed to have been fully paid off. Answer to Question No. 4,5,6,7 & 8 clearly proved the case of the Complainant. If an answer comes in cross-examination, it has a special effect under the Evidence Act. In addition to that, the Complainant put a question under Point No. 5 of the questionnaires dated 16.03.2021, wherein the question was “Whether the Complainant is eligible to waiver the interest of loan”.
The OP answered against the said questionnaire No. Point 5 on 26.05.2022 in the form of affirmative “Yes” Complainant is eligible to interest (Waiver of interest?).
Therefore, the plea of the Complainant for waiver of interest stands well established.
Thus from oral and documentary evidence it is evident that the Complainant successfully proved the case.
In the light of the discussion made herein above, vis-à-vis having taken into consideration, the respective arguments of the Ld. Advocates for both the parties as well as the opinion of the Hon’ble Superior Courts/Commissions, I am of the view that the Complainant should be given due benefits of the Govt. Scheme or projects. There is nothing to show that the OP Bank has been closed down. However on the date of arising of the cause of action, the OP Bank was subsisting. Accordingly, the Complainant should be given due relief in the form of an award.
Consequently Points No. 2 & 3 are answered in affirmative and decided on the behalf of the Complainant. Thus the complaint case succeeds with cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case number CC/15/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/-. The Complainant do get an award for the sum of Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.15,000/- towards mental pain and agony. The opposite parties are directed to provide necessary benefits by giving effect as per the Government Circular No.6/2/99/DCH/2013-14/DHDS dated 27.09.2013 in regard to waiver of interest of the said loan Account and supply a loan account statement to the Complainant within 30 days (thirty days) from the date of passing the Final Order. Both the opposite parties are further directed jointly and/or severally to pay Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days (thirty days) from the date of passing the Final Order failing which the opposite parties shall pay an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of passing the Final Order till the date of realization thereof.
The complaint case is thus disposed of. Note in the Trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
