National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Prem Baboo vs Branch Manager, Farakhabad Gramin Bank ... on 23 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: III(2004)CPJ18(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, respondent before us.
2. Brief facts of the case are that admittedly the petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs. 2,000/- from the first respondent Gramin Bank Farakhabad and when this amount was not getting repaid, the first respondent adopted the route to recovery of this amount with interest by way of revenue recovery. The Revenue Authorities in pursuit of this case made efforts to recover amount from the petitioner. The petitioner paid Rs. 1,100/- on two separate dates in 1987 and 1988 to the Ameen, Surender Singh, receipt of which was given to the complainant. He allegedly paid a further sum of Rs. 2,000/-to the said Ameen for which no receipt is available on record. The prayer of the complainant was that the Bank should issue a No Due Certificate as he has paid due amount to the Ameen, but it is the case of the Bank that no amount has been received by them. It is in these circumstances that a complaint came to be filed by the petitioner complainant before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties directed the first respondent Bank to recover the paid out amount from the Revenue Authorities and only the remaining amount, if any, from the complainant. A compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/- was also awarded in favour of the petitioner/complainant.
3. On an appeal filed by the Bank before the State Commission, it allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum, and dismissed the complaint. Hence this revision petition.
4. The notices were issued to the 3rd respondent while the first respondent came to be represented by the learned Counsel, one Mr. U.N. Shukla, the other two, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3 deemed to have been served--hence were proceeded ex parte. On the date fixed for hearing despite knowledge none was present from the respondent No. 1. He was proceeded ex parte. We had appointed an Amicus to plead the case of the petitioner.
5. We heard her at length and perused the material on record. No dispute had been raised by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the said Ameen, who had gone to recover on the direction of the respondent No. 3, Tehsildar, had not recovered the money. In the absence of which we have no other way but to accept the plea of the complainant that in all Rs. 4,200/-were paid in 3 trenches, i.e., in 1987, 1988 and 1992. As per material on record, while receipts were issued for the first two instalments, but there is no receipt for 3rd instalment and it is the contention of the complainant that the third payment was made to the Ameen Surender Singh in the presence of peon who had come with the Ameen. These averments have not been rebutted. In our view, once the recovery proceedings under the Revenue Code of the State had been initiated by the Bank and unrebutted averments of the complainant that the money was paid to the Ameen who is the Collecting/Enforcement Agency of the Tehsildar, the petitioner cannot be faulted for non-payment. In our view the State Commission erred in directing the petitioner/complainant to recover the money from Ameen. This was not an ordinary mutual relationship between the complainant and the Ameen. Ameen is functionary in the functional hierarchy of Revenue Administration in State which was acting under law as provided in the Revenue Code. Hence whatever payments were made and if they were not deposited by the Ameen in favour of the Bank, the petitioner/complainant cannot be faulted for this. Matter is now between the Bank and Revenue Hierarchy and since in this case the amounts are reported to have been paid and the contention to this effect remain unrebutted, the conclusion is that these amounts were paid by the petitioner to the Ameen under a process of law to be paid back to the Bank. We cannot expect any agency to recover twice from the poor farmer--one under process of law and the other by the initiating authority--in this case the Bank. It is for the Bank to get the details from the Revenue Authorities as to what has been done as a follow-up to the recovery proceedings initiated on behest of the Bank. Having failed to do so and having been brought on record that amounts have been paid by the complainant to the Bank through Ameen, the Bank is not entitled to double recovery of this amount from the petitioner/complainant.
6. In view of the above observations, we are unable sustain the order passed by the State Commission which is set aside and bank may take action to recover the amount from revenue officials paid to the Ameen by the complainant as per law and the Bank shall be free to recover only the outstanding amount, if any, after catering for the amount paid to the Ameen, from the petitioner/complainant which he is obliged to pay.
Only to the above extent this revision petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.