DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No. 345 of 23-07-2012
Decided on 26-09-2012
Gurvinder Singh s/o Gurdev Singh, VPO Mehma Sarja, Distt. Bathinda-151201, Punjab E-mail:raja2675@yahoo.in.
........Complainant
Versus
Tha Manager, The Central Co-Operative Bank Branch, VPO Mehma Sarja, Distt. Bathinda-151201,
The Manager, Head Office, The Central Co-operative Bank, Opp.Head Post Office, Courts Complex, City Bathinda-151201.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Gurvinder Singh, complainant in person.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Amanpal Singh, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has applied in the Debt Relief Scheme. The complainant alleged that as per the budget of 2008-09, it was the duty of the bank to enlist on notice board which debts come under the scheme and which do not come under the said scheme with all valid reasons and technicalities. The opposite parties have done nothing to dispose off the debt relief despite the circular issued by Government of India in which prescribed date was 30.6.2008. It was also circulated through TV, Radio and papers as invitation to public to contact with their respective bank to get their debt's knowledge. The opposite parties kept the matter un-disposed and pending over the 4 years even till date against the notified and circulated date of 30.6.2008. The abovementioned circulated notice was issued by NABARD. The opposite parties have given the false information that Co-Operative banks do not cover under this relief scheme. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties kept the limit A/c facility totally closed and kept pending from the last 4 years period due to which the complainant has suffered damages of his 8 crops by each 6 months duration of grand total of Rs.2,34,600/- from his 2 acres land under the category of Agroforestry. The bank has failed to dispose of the written application regarding the debt relief. Alongwith his complaint the complainant has filed an application for the condonation of delay.
2. The notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this forum have filed their reply to the main complaint as well as to the application of condonation of delay. In the main reply the opposite parties pleaded that the Debt Relief Scheme is not applicable to the facts alleged in the complaint and the complaint is not covered under the said scheme. The full name of the said scheme is Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and it relates to agriculturists only. The facility being availed by the complainant vide A/c No.138 is with regard to Cash Credit limit. Since the facility availed does not fall under the Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, thus the complainant is not included in the said scheme. The cash credit limit in favour of the complainant was sanctioned on 7.6.2007 and disbursed on 9.6.2007. The aforesaid scheme was applicable to the debts sanctioned and disbursed from March 1997 to 31st March, 2007, thus the case of the complainant does not fall under the aforesaid scheme as per Circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, NABARD and Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab. The complainant availed cash credit limit to be payable after every 6 months with interest and other charges and thereafter he was competent to avail the said limit again for the next 6 months. The complainant became defaulter in repayment of the due loan amount in his account. The document mentioned at page No.26 of the file does not relate to the Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, rather it relates to recovery of the due amount from the complainant in cash credit A/c No.138 and no cause of action has arisen for him from the said document.
In reply to the application for condonation of delay the opposite parties pleaded that the cause of action if any arisen to the complainant has arisen from the date of implementation of the said scheme, the complainant does not fall under the scheme as he has availed the facility on his A/c No.138 for cash credit limit. The case of the complainant does not fall within the alleged scheme. The alleged information dated 8.6.2011 related to the recovery of the amount against the complainant and not to the disputed matter i.e. Debt Relief Scheme. The cause of action did not arise to the complainant from 8.6.2011.
3. The complainant has produced the evidence to support his pleadings.
4. Arguments advanced by the counsel of the parties on application for condonation of delay heard and written submissions submitted by the complainant perused.
5. The complainant has specifically mentioned in para 1 of his application for condonation of delay and clarification of delay in filing this matter that the cause of action arises since the date of alleged scheme implemented and the alleged bank did not dispose off the debt relief case rather kept it pending and undisposed by dispatching false information dated 8.6.2011. A perusal of documents as well as complaint shows that the cause of action if any arose to the complainant is on 30.6.2008. Under the 'Act', there is period of 2 years for filing the complaint but the complainant has filed the present complaint on 23.7.2012, the cause of action if any has arisen to the complainant when he applied for the debt waiver scheme on 30.6.2008, he himself remained silent till 23.7.2012 and did not approach this Forum earlier, thus his application for condonation of delay is hereby disposed off as dismissed as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled State Bank of India Versus B.S Agricultural Industries(I), 2009(2) CLT 541, wherein it has been held that
“ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 section 24A-Limitation-Cause of action to the complainant accrued on June 7, 1994 and complaint filed on 5.5.1997-neither application for condonation of delay nor any sufficient cause shown-The question of condonation of delay in filing the complaint does not arise-Complaint barred by time and ought to have been dismissed as such-The appeal allowed-The orders of Foras below liable to be set-aside and complaint dismissed as time barred”.
6. Therefore in view of above settled law, the application of condonation of delay alongwith the main complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost as the complaint is time barred and the merits are need not to be touched.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
26-09-2012
Vikramjit Kaur Soni
President
Sukhwinder Kaur
Member
