West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/21/2016

Biswanath Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, U.C.O. Bank - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

 

 

                                                         DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

 Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

   

                                                   Complaint Case No. 21/2016

                                                       

                                                                  Sri Biswanath Patra…………….………Complainant.

Versus

                                        The Manager, UCO Bank, Banka Br.........…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant:    Self

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Kshitish Palmal, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 10/06/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a poor farmer and he is the holder of Kisan Credit Card vide no.13270510000977.  By virtue of that Kisan Credit Card, he took paddy loan of Rs.60,000/- on 26/07/2013 from the opposite party – Bank and after taking such loan, he cultivated his paddy land.  Due to natural calamity, he suffered huge loss of his paddy land and thereafter local ADO along with the Insurance Company made an investigation regarding such loss of paddy of the complainant and they assured that compensation for such loss would be given to all the farmers of that mouza. On 22/09/2015, an amount of  crop insurance was deposited for benefit of the farmers but the manager of the opposite party – bank did not deposit  such crop insurance amount in the account of the complainant in spite of the fact that the other farmers of that mouza have been awarded such crop insurance amount.  On 4/11/2015, the complainant sent a letter by registered post with A/D to that effect to the opposite party-bank but in spite of that, opposite party-bank did neither give any reply nor deposited such amount in the loan account of the complainant.  Complainant thereafter submitted an application under the provision of Right to

Contd……………….P/2

 

 

 

( 2 )

Information Act on 14/12/2015 but the opposite party-bank did not give any reply nor did they deposit the said amount.  Complainant lodged a complaint before the Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices but in spite of receipt of notice, the opposite                       party-bank did not appear before the said department.  Hence the complaint, praying for an award of Rs.24,000/- towards 40% of his loan amount as subsidy  and for an award of compensation of Rs.20,000/- as mental pain and agony and for other reliefs.

                  The opposite party-bank has contested this case by filling a written objection.

                  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party-bank that the complaint is not maintainable in it’s present form and prayer, that the complaint is barred by limitation and that it false to say that Government gave any subsidy of 40% of the loan amount in credit of the complainant’s account.  It is stated by the opposite party-bank that they gave Rs.60,000/- only to the complainant as cash credit loan through K.C.C. Loan A/C no.13270510000977 on 26/07/2013 and the complainant utilized the said amount but till today no Government subsidy of 40% has been given in favour of the complainant and for that reason,  opposite party-bank has no scope to deduct the said alleged subsidy amount from the loan amount  of the complainant.  It is contended that the Government of West Bengal is a necessary party in this case and in their absence, the present case is not maintainable.  Opposite party never received any circular from the Government about alleged subsidy or any sort of insurance coverage amount against the cash credit loan of the complainant.  Opposite party repeatedly informed the complainant that they received no such circular or amount of subsidy but in spite of that, the complainant with a bad intention has filed this case.  Opposite party therefore claimed dismissal of the complaint with cost.

  

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?  

Decision with reasons

    In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary.  However they have filed some documents in this case.

   It is not denied and disputed that the complainant is a holder of K.C.C. and the opposite party-bank gave cash credit loan of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant through his K.C.C. loan A/C no.13270510000977 on 26/07/2013.  According to the complainant after taking such loan, he cultivated his paddy land but due to devastating natural calamity, his paddy field was damaged causing huge loss to him.  Further according to the complainant

Contd……………….P/3

 

 

 

( 3 )

for such lose of the farmers of that mouza, Government gave subsidy to the farmers through various banks  but the opposite party-bank did not give 40% as subsidy of his said paddy loan of Rs.60,000/-, although the other farmers of that locality got subsidy.  As against this, it is the case of the opposite party-bank that they received no such circular from the Government regarding payment of subsidy of 40% in respect of the said loan of the complainant and therefore they have no scope to deduct the said alleged subsidy amount from the loan account of the complainant.  In view of such denial, burden lies upon the complainant to show and to prove that the Government gave any such subsidy in respect of the said loan in question of the complainant.  Complainant filed no documents/circular of Government to show and to prove that any such subsidy amount was granted by the Government in respect of his such loan.  Since we get no such Government circular/order regarding alleged subsidy in favour of the complainant, so it cannot be held that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-bank regarding non- payment of subsidy amount of 40% in the loan account  of the complainant.  The petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

 

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                            that the complain case no.21/2016  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                    Sd/-B. Pramanik.                         Sd/-D. Sengupta.                  Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                        President                                        Member                              President

                                                                                                                      District Forum

                                                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur