State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
General Manager, H.P. State ... vs Lalit Kumar on 23 October, 2013
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.120/2013
Date of Presentation: 13.05.2013
Date of Decision: 23.10.2013
.................................................................................
(1) General Manager,
H.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited,
Head Office, The Mall Shimla-1, H.P.
(2) The Manager,
H.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited,
Branch Office, Geharwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.
(3) District Revenue Officer (Recovery),
State Co-operative Bank Limited,
Mandi & Bilaspur, at Mandi, H.P.
(All through GPA holder of H.P. State Cooperative Bank
Limited, The Mall Shimla).
.......... Appellants
Versus
Lalit Kumar, son of Shri Prem Singh,
Resident of Village Jhajjar, Post Office Geharwin,
Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P.
.......... Respondent
.......................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellants: Mr. Jagat Singh Shyam, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Chetan Viraj Sharma, Advocate
..........................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, whereby a 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? {(General Manager, H.P. State CO-Operative Bank Vs. Lalit Kumar) (F.A. No.120/2013)} complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them by respondent, Lalit Kumar, has been allowed and a direction issued to them to extend the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, copy Annexure C-7.
2. Respondent, Lalit Kumar, took a loan of `1,96,000/- for construction of a shed for poultry farm from H.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, represented by appellants No.1 and 2, in the year 2001. Loan was to be repaid within five years in monthly instalments. Respondent did not pay the loan. Reference was made to the Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of H.P. State Co-operative Societies Act. Award was given against the respondent in the sum of `2,72,108/-. The award was sent by the bank to appellant No.3, District Revenue Officer, for effecting recovery. In the meanwhile, Government of India brought out a scheme, known as "Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008." Respondent represented to the appellants for the waiver of debt. His representation was rejected. He, therefore, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to Page 2 of 4 {(General Manager, H.P. State CO-Operative Bank Vs. Lalit Kumar) (F.A. No.120/2013)} the appellants to waive the debt and not to proceed with the recovery of money due.
3. Complaint was contested by all the appellants. It was stated that the respondent was not a consumer, nor were the appellants guilty of any deficiency in service. On merits, it was stated that loan had been raised by the respondent for construction of a shed for poultry farm and the aforesaid scheme of debt waiver did not apply, where the loan was taken for construction of farmhouses, sheds etc. as per Clause (xii) of the scheme, Annexure-
18.
4. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order has allowed the complaint and issued directions, as aforesaid.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Complaint was filed by the respondent, seeking benefit of debt waiver scheme. The scheme provides for redressal of grievances, in case someone feels aggrieved, on account of non-extension of its benefits. Beneficiaries under the scheme, in our considered view, are not consumers of banking service. The scheme is by way of an act of help to Page 3 of 4 {(General Manager, H.P. State CO-Operative Bank Vs. Lalit Kumar) (F.A. No.120/2013)} agriculturists. The scheme itself provides for redressal of grievances. Therefore, the right course available to the respondent should be to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer appointed under Clause (xvi) of the scheme. In case the respondent approaches the Grievance Redressal Officer and feels dissatisfied with the decision of the Grievance Redressal Officer, he can approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances and not the Consumer Fora, because his not being a consumer.
7. In view of the above stated position, appeal is accepted, impugned order set aside and consequently the complaint is dismissed.
8. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member October 23, 2013 *dinesh* Page 4 of 4