SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,
Case of the complaint: the complainant took a loan ofRs 1,00,000/- on 10.06.2011 and further Rs. 1,00000/- on 20.06.2011 from the OP Bank through his Loan Account No. 1106316001. On 20.06.2011 the complainant also deposited Rs. 20,000/- as a fixed deposit with the OP Bank. On 18.07.2012 the complainant deposited his first installment of repayment of Rs. 20,000/- on 18.07.2012 as principle and Rs.2,175/- as interest. In the month of February 2013 the complainant became seriously ill. A devastating floor affected the entire locality of the complainant on 23.08.2013 due to incessant rain from 19.08.2013 to 21.08.2013. The District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur declared the are as Flood Affected and also by Memo No. 622(9) dated 05.09.2-13 declared “Agriculture Loan Free” in the affected mouzas including that of the complainant. The Chief Minister also declared to that effect. The complainant was not aware of such declaration due to his illness. Subsequently the staff of the OP bank pressurized the complainant for repayment of the loan and due to such pressure the complainant repaid Rs. 5000/- on 14.08.2014, s. 50,000/- on 25.08.2014 , Rs. 74,000/- on 25.03.2015 and lastly Rs. 1,68,000/- on 09.02.2018. Thus the complainant has paid entire amount of loan with interest. Thereafter being acquainted with the declaration of the District Magistrate and the Hon’’ble Chief Minister, the complainant send a letter to the bank for refund of the entire loan amount to the tune of Rs. 2,97,000/-repaid by him and the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 20,000/-. But the OP bank did not pay any heed to such prayer of the complainant.
Under the above circumstances, the complainant has filed this complaint with a prayer for direction upon the OP to refund Rs. 2,97,000/- and fixed deposit amount of Rs. 20,000/- together with other reliefs.
All the three Ops contested the case by filing a single written version and prayed for dismissal of the complaint on various grounds.
The specific case of the OP bank is that the complainant took the loan and also he repaid the entire amount with interest. The bank also returned all the material documents kept with the bank after such repayment of the loan. The Bank also returned the complainant his share amount of Rs. 6660/- and his membership has been ceased on and from 09.02.2018. This OP further contended that the petitioner did not take any Agriculture Loan nor they admit any declaration of the Government for “Agriculture Loan Free”
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances this OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.
On the pleadings of the parties as above, the following issues need be considered (1) whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASONS. .
Perused the complaint, the written version of the OPs, Perused the documents filed by the parties. Also seen the affidavit in chief filed by the complainant, the questionnaires and the answered filed thereto by the complainant. Heard the argument as advanced by the Ld. Advocate for both sides. Considered.
Both the points are taken up for consideration together for the sake of conveyance and brevity.
Admittedly the complainant took loan from the OP Bank being by two installments of Rs 10,000/- each on 20.06.2011 and on 30.05.2011 from h is Loan Account No. 1106316001 for the purpose of Batel vine (Bangla) by an application being No. B/11/31/11-12 at an interest of Rs 12.25% per annum. The complainant deposited Rs 20,000/- with the bank as Fixed Deposit. According to the complainant on 18.07.2012 he paid his last installment towards repayment oin 18.07.2012 as principle and Rs. 2125/-as interest. It is admitted by the OP Bank that they returned the complainant his share amount of Rs. 6660/- and his membership has been ceased on and from 09.02.2018 and they also returned all his documents and deeds etc by completing all the formalities.
It is the allegation of the complainant that he took an agricultural loan and there was flood in the locality on 23.08.2013 which was preceded by heavy rainfall from 19.08.2013 to 21.08.2013 and crops were totally destroyed. According to the complainant on 03.09.2013 the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur vide Memo No. 622 (9) dated 05.09.2013 declared that “Agricultural Loan Free” for the flood affected mouzas. Also in the daily Sambad Pratidin dated 14.09.2013 it was declared by the Hon’’ble Chief Minister of West Bengal. According to the complainant he was not aware of the said declaration due to his illness and for that reason the Op threatened the complainant for repayment o the loan and the complainant cleared all his dues to the bank with interest and now the complainant wants refund of entire amount of Rs. 2,97,203/- and fixed deposit amount of Rs. 20,000/-.
The Ops alleged that the complainant did not take any Agricultural Loan from the OP and there is no mention as “Agricultural Loan Free” in the order of the Hon’ble District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur vide Memo No. 622 (9)-Xvii dated 05.09.2013.
The Ops have filed a copy of the order of the Government of West Bengal from the office of the District Magistrate and Collector, Purba Medinipur Disaster Management Department where it has been declared that “whereas the said Deputy Director of Agriculture (Admn) has enlisted the enclosed list of affected areas as severely affected i.e yield damage of more tan 50% to standing crops on enquiry. In view of the above, I, Smt. Antara Acharya , IAS District Magistrate and Collector Purba Medinipur hereby declare the enlisted area (List enclosed ) of Purba Medinipur District as natural calamity viz Flood affected for further necessary action. This may kindly be brought into the notice of the concerned Government Department.”
It appears that there is no mention of waver of debt by the Administration concerned . OP also filed a copy of the letter dated 29.08.2018 written to the President of the DCDRF Purba Medinipur where the Manager of the OP Bank ,Tamluk Branch informed this Forum that the “Complainant already liquidated the loan taken from the Tamluk Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development bank stating there was no declaration for waiver of the debt and interest by the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur.
The complainant also filed a copy of order from the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi dated 28.05.2008 on the caption “Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 , Implementation of Circular 1/2008. The circular reads as (i) only those Agricultural Loan which fulfill all the three conditions ie disbursed between March, 31,m 1997 and March, 31st 2007 (b) overdue on December 31, 2007 and (c) remaining unpaid until February, 29, 2008 will be eligible for debt waiver/debt relief under the Scheme.
It appears that the complainant could not produce any substantial evidence to show that the loan as taken by him from the bank in 2011 or declaration as waiving by the Administration of West Bengal. There is no cogent evidence to that effect and more so, in the cross-examination by the OP Bank the complainant could not produce any such reliable document to prove his contention that he is entitled to get the waiver. In addition to that the complainant could not produce any strong evidence that he took the loan for agricultural purpose. The circular of the Ministry of Finance dated 28.05.2008 clearly says that the persons whose loan remains unpaid up to February 2008 as well disbursed between March 31, 1997 and March, 31, 2007 will be eligible for getting the waiver if other conditions are fulfilled. It is the clear case of the complainant that he took the loan on 10.06.2011 and 20.06.2011. He also paid the loan amount and all his documents have been returned after such full repayment. So this circular of the Government of India is not relevant in this case.
Hence, after considering the materials on record and hearing the submission of the ld Advocate for the parties, and also considering the entire evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant fails to prove his case and he is not entitled to get any relief from the OP.
Both the points are decided accordingly against the complainant.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the CC No. 224 of 2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against all the OPs.
Parties are directed to bear their own cost.
Let copy of the judgment be supplied all the parties free of costs.
