Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1123/2011

Jai Singh S/o Banwari LAl - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Yamuna Nagar Central Co-op Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Balbir Singh

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 1123 of  2011.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 03.11.2011.

                                                                                              Date of decision: 22.04.2016.

 

Jai Singh aged about 43 years son of Sh. Banwari Lal, resident of Village Rajheri, P.O. Nachron, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The Yamuna Nagar Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Branch Jathlana, through its Branch Manager.  
2. The Yamuna Nagar Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Yamuna Nagar, through its Managing Director.    

                                                                                              …Respondents. 

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Balbir Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. P.K.Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Jai Singh filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 2.                    Brief facts, of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he obtained a loan of Rs. 30,200/- from the OPs Bank i.e. Yamuna Nagar Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Branch Jathlana for starting his business of Atta Chakki which was sanctioned vide order No. 8731 dated 29.7.1994 and paid all the installments including interest to OP No.1 through valid receipts. Lastly, he deposited Rs. 10,000/- on dated 14.01.2014 vide receipt No. 130404, Rs. 5000/- on dated 20.01.2004 vide receipt No. 130427 and Rs. 16,000/- on 24.5.2004 vide receipt No. 130796. Hence, as per the scheme the complainant has cleared the principal amount and loan amount and nothing remains due towards the complainant. Now, after a lapse of more than 7 years, the Op No.1 has served a false and frivolous notice of recovery of Rs. 25589/- as principal amount and Rs. 24795/- as interest charged up to 31.03.2011 which is liable to be quashed. After obtaining recovery notice, the complainant approached the Op No.1 and requested to withdraw the said notice but the Op No.1 refused to listen the genuine request of the complainant and misbehaved with the him. Lastly, prayed that OPs be directed to withdraw the notice and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, no cause of action, Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint as per section 128 of the Co-operative Societies Act. No notice has been issued under section 124 of the Co-operative Societies Act and no suit shall be instituted against the Cooperative Societies or any of its officer in respect of any touching the business of the society until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has to be delivered to the Registrar but in this case no notice has been served and on merit, it has been submitted that since beginning, the complainant has remained failed to repay the loan regularly inspite of repeated requests of the officials from time to time. As far as the scheme of the Government is concerned, the said scheme was launched for Agriculturists only by the Government of India and the complainant had taken the loan for commercial purpose. As such, the contention raised by the complainant is totally wrong. No such scheme has been launched that only principal amount is to be paid and the interest would be waived off. As per record of the OP Bank, the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 52308/- i.e. Rs. 25589/- as principal and Rs. 24795/- as interest up to 30.9.2011 with future interest. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and recovery notice has been rightly issued to the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of recovery notice as Annexure C-1, Photo copies of receipt of installment deposited as Annexure C-2 to C-9, Photo copy of Account Statement as Annexure C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  Counsel for the complainant tendered into additional evidence copy of application under RTI Act as Annexure C-11, Copy of waiver scheme issued by Nabard as Annexure C-12 and C-13 and closed the additional evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Suresh Kumar, Branch Manager as Annexure RX and documents such as Photo copy of loan account register as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant Jai Singh obtained a loan facility of Rs. 30200/- from the Bank of Ops for installation of an Atta Chakki on dated 29.07.1994. As per version of the complainant, he cleared all the loan amount after availing the benefit of waiver scheme launched by OPs Bank and made last payment of Rs. 16000/- vide receipt No. 130796 on dated 24.05.2004 and nothing remained due towards the complainant at that time.

8.                     On the other hand, the plea of the OPs Bank is that an amount of Rs. 25,589/- is due being principal amount and Rs. 24,795/- as interest up to 31.03.2011 against the complainant as per their account statement which is evident from Annexure R-1, consisting of 18 pages.

9.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the documents placed on file, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum as no notice has ever been given under section 124 of the Cooperative Societies Act and without serving two months’ notice no suit shall be instituted against the Cooperative Societies or any of its officer in respect of any touching the business of Society. Furthermore, as per version of the complainant, the OPs bank waived of the entire interest as per their waiver scheme on depositing of only principal amount whereas OPs Bank has controverted the version of the complainant and to find out whether the complainant was entitled to get the relief under the waiver scheme of the Ops Bank or not, cross examination of the witnesses as well as scrutiny of the documents i.e. waiver scheme, account statement pertaining to the period from 1994 to 2004 i.e. from the date of disbursement of loan, till last payment and even till the waiver scheme, are required, which is not possible in the summary manner and elaborate evidence is required for the same. Further more, if we presume that the version of the complainant that there was any waiver scheme of the OPs Bank and the entire interest was waived off by the OPs Bank under that scheme and further if there is any limitation for issuance of recovery notice after a lapse of 7 years, then the complainant can raise these objections to defend his case if OPs Bank pursue the recovery suit before any competent court of law. However, the present complaint cannot be decided in summary way.

10.                   Resultantly, In these circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 22.04.2016.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                               

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                                MEMBER