DATE OF DISPOSAL: 29.04.2024
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant is a consumer under O.P.No.1 vides Account No. 00905308135. Similarly he is also a consumer as well as member/small cultivator of Komanda PACS, At/Po: Komanda, Dist: Ganjam vide Regd. No. 1236 of O.P.No.2. On 04.01.2018 a Khariff loan of amounting Rs.1,00,000/- has been deposited in his saving bank deposit pass book (Kishan credit card) but in the same day Rs.49,000/- and Rs.26,000/- has been deducted immediately without consent of the complainant. The complainant has not filed any withdrawal form to the O.P.No.1 to withdraw the money from his account. From the above circumstances the O.P. has ill intention to withdraw the money from complainant’s account and grab the huge loan amount of the complainant. The complainant has applied loan for the purpose of agriculture and the Government has been pleased to sanction for utilization of that amount for development of crops but the deduction of loan amount without consent of the complainant harass him and he is in deep mental agony. After close enquiry the complainant came to know that both the O.Ps failed to maintain the individual account and embezzled the cultivator’s money as well as public money on record. The complainant having no alternative issued a notice through his advocate to the O.Ps. But the O.Ps had given false reply to the complainant taking vague pleas. The complainant is a small cultivator and a huge amount has been deducted from his loan account, so the annual crop of the complainant has been damaged. The complainant is depending upon the cultivation usufructs. So the complainant faced a loss of Rs. 1 lakh when on 04.07.2018 the O.Ps have deducted the amount unauthorized from his bank account. Due to mismanagement of accounts, negligent and serious deficiency in service of the O.Ps, the complainant sustained mental, physical and financial loss and agony for which he is liable to be compensated by the O.Ps jointly and severally to the tune of rupees one lakh towards loss and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to deposit Rs.49,000/- and Rs.26,000/- only in the complainant’s account with interest, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notice issued to the Opposite Parties.
4. The O.P.No.1 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that it is true that the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in the concerned account of the complainant. But it is false to say that Rs.49,000/- and Rs.26,000/- have been deducted immediately from such account without the consent of the complainant. The complainant has himself filed the withdrawal form for withdrawal of the said amounts on the same day. Each and every transaction in connection with the bank account of the complainant has taken place as per complainant’s desire and consent and well within his knowledge only. The allegations of ill intention, grabbing of huge amount of loan, embezzlement etc. against the O.P.No.1 are false. Likewise, the allegations of harassment, negligence, deficiency in service, mental, physical and financial loss and agony etc. by the complainant against the O.P.No.1 are false and fabricated. All these allegations by the complainant are designed and meant for taking undue advantage. Earlier also the complainant has been explained about the transactions relating to his bank account personally/officially. The O.P.No.1 is/are public officer(s) doing their duty in good faith and there is no impropriety or illegality on their/his part. The complaint petition as also claim of compensation by the complainant is not maintainable against the O.P.No.1 who is innocent public/bank officer(s) and has been unnecessarily dragged into litigation by the complainant with bad intention. Hence the O.P.No.1 prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
5. The O.P.No.2 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint are all false, fabricated, created are not true and correct, the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The allegations which are not specifically admitted and traversed are deemed to be denied by this O.P. The complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of the consumer protection act and this O.P. not agreed to render any type service to him for any consideration and the relation between the parties are that of debtor and creditor and the complainant is stopped by law to seek any benefit under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The O.P.No.1 is the Berhampur Co-operative Central Bank, carrying its banking business among other places at Khallikote and its head office situated at Berhampur, Dist: Ganjam. The O.P.No.2 Komanda Co-operative Society Registered under the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act and its office at village: Komanda, via: Patappur, Dist: Ganjam represented through its secretary aimed to give and extend its assistance in recommending for getting financial help from different Banks, Government schemes etc. to the members who are small and downtrodden farmers to uplift in their financial equipments for cultivation and procuring crops free of charges without any consideration. The O.P.No.1 is the district and separate co-operative Rural Banking Institution deals with such recommended and sponsored farmers under different government schemes, societies and associations. The complainant and his family members are permanent inhabitants of village Komanda and are small cultivating farmers possessing own agricultural lands in their names. The complainant being the member of the society nominated and sponsored for eligible for getting agricultural KHARIF crop loan by the O.P.No.2, accordingly the loan was sanctioned by the O.P.No.1 under the provisions of law on eligible criteria fulfilled by the complainant upon certain terms and conditions. The O.P.No.1 is the sole and final authority in dealing with sanction and disbursement of loans, the O.P.No.2 no way is concerned with those matters of loans and realization of its dues. The complainant is maintaining account with the O.P. No.1, but further allegation the O.P.No.1 deducted Rs.49,000/- and Rs.26,000/- on 04.01.2018 from the loan account of the complainant without obtaining withdrawal form and without his consent to harass and to put him in to mental agony are false and beyond the control of this O,.P.No.2, the complainant is to put strict proof of the same. Further allegations the O.Ps failed to maintain the individual account and embezzled the cultivator’s money as well as public money on record is purely false. This O.Ps has not undertaken to render any service to complainant and there are no contract exits between the complainant and this O.P.No.2. The complainant availed loan from the O.P.No.1 and fully utilized for raising crops, but further allegations of monetary loss without furnishing full particulars of loss, specification and nature of loss is not maintainable, it is devoid of any merits same its merit. The complainant with an ulterior motive for malafide intention to harass the O.Ps for his wrongful gains filed such baseless, fabricated case against this O.Ps is not maintainable in law, facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the O.P.No.2 prays to dismiss the case in the interest of justice.
6. On the date of hearing parties are present. We heard argument at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument, and documents available in the case record. On 04.01.2018 a Khariff loan of amounting Rs.1,00,000/- has been deposited in his saving bank deposit pass book (Kishan credit card) but in the same day Rs.49,000/- and Rs.26,000/- has been deducted immediately without consent of the complainant. The complainant has not filed any withdrawal form to the O.P.No.1 to withdraw the money from his account. From the above circumstances the O.P. has ill intention to withdraw the money from complainant’s account and grab the huge loan amount of the complainant. But the advocate for O.P.No.1 filed attested true/Xerox copy of the withdrawal form dated 04.07.2018 of Rs.49,000/- and Rs.26,000/- respectively which was signed by the complainant. There was no cause of action arose on 04.01.2018 and withdrawn taken place whereas the original pass book account No.009053008135 is corroborating the withdrawal form dated 04.07.2018 and two transactions of withdrawal of Rs.49,000/- and Rs.26,000/- respectively were recorded in the said account pass book. The complainant rightly withdraws the amount in his sound mind and with his implicit consent. The Commission did not find any deficiency in services on the part of the O.P.No.1 as the O.P.No.1 has allowed the complainant to withdraw the said amount and duly accepted the withdrawal from dated 04.07.2018 filed by the complainant.
In the result we dismissed the case. Parties are directed to bear their own cost.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 29.04.2024.
