State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Puranjan Maiti vs The Chief Administrative Officer, ... on 6 April, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/171/2019 ( Date of Filing : 25 Feb 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/01/2019 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/224/2018 of District Purba Midnapur) 1. Puranjan Maiti S/o Lt. Ananta Kr. Maiti, Vill. - Dogachi, P.O. - Kelomal, P.S. - Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Chief Administrative Officer, Tamluk Co-Op.Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. & Others P.O. & P.S. - Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur- 721 636. 2. The Chairman, Tamluk Co-Op.Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. P.O. & P.S. - Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur - 721 636. 3. The Br. Manager, Tamluk Co-Op.Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. P.O. & P.S. - Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur - 721 636. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. Dipa Sen ( Maity ) PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUBHRA SANKAR BHATTA JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Mr. Binoy Ch. Dhara, Mr. B.K.Metya, Advocate for the Appellant 1 Dated : 06 Apr 2023 Final Order / Judgement Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Judicial Member
The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed at the behest of the Appellant viz. Puranjan Maiti who was the Complainant before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk (hereinafter referred to "as the District Commission" for short) challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2019 passed by the District Commission in connection with Consumer complaint case no. CC/224/2018 wherein and whereby Ld. District Commission was pleased to dismiss the petition of complaint on contest against the OPs and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Appellant, Sri Puranjan Maiti as Complainant instituted the petition of complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs/Respondents herein viz. 1) The Chief Administrative Officer, 2) The Chairman and 3) The Branch Manager, all of Tamluk Cooperative Agriculture Rural Development Bank Limited, Post and P.S. - Tamluk, District-Purba Medinipur and prayed for redressal as sought for in the prayer portion of the complaint.
Case of the Complainant in a nutshell, is that, the Complainant took a loan from the Respondents/Bank amounting to Rs.1,00,000 on 10.06.2011 and further Rs. 1,00,000/- on 20.06.2011 totalling a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- through his loan account being no. 1106316001 as a pre-condition to avail such loan the Complainant have to make a fixed deposit of Rs. 20,000/- with the Respondents/Bank on 20.06.2011. On 18.07.2012 the Complainant deposited his first instalment of Rs. 20,000/- towards repayment of loan as principal and Rs. 2,175/- as interest. In the month of February, 2013 the Complainant became seriously ill and was lying in bed ridden condition from the month of February, 2013.
Further case of the Complainant is that there occurred a devastating flood in the locality of the Complainant due to incessant rain on and from 19.08.2013 to 21.08.2013 causing ultimate destruction of all the crops in the fields. After assessing the severity of the flood the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur by his order vide memo no. 622(9) dated 05.09.2013 was pleased to declare the area as flood affected and also as per order of the State Government all agricultural loans were waived for the affected Mouzas of the Complainant's area by declaring the same as "agricultural loan free zone" and the said news was published in the newspaper named Sanbad Protidin on 14.09.2013. The Chief Minister of West Bengal was also pleased to announce that the agricultural loans will be waived for those affected Mouzas. The Complainant was completely unaware of the above fact and the Respondents being fully aware of the Government orders, declarations and notifications did not bother to make the Complainant aware of the said fact. It has been alleged that by suppressing the Government notification the Respondents continuously asked and demanded the loan instalments from the Complainant and being pressurised the Complainant duly paid Rs. 5,000/- on 14.08.2014, Rs.50,000/- on 25.08.2014, Rs.74,000/- on 25.03.2015 and lastly Rs. 1,68,203/- on 09.02.2018 and thus remitted the whole liability of the said loan. The Complainant had to pay a total sum of Rs. 2,97,203/- plus the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards the said loan.
Further case of the Complainant is that being acquainted with the declaration of the District Magistrate and the Hon'ble Chief Minister the Complainant sent a letter to the Respondents/Bank for refund of the entire loan amount to the tune of Rs. 2,97,203/- paid by him and the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 20,000/- but the OP/Bank did not pay any heed to such prayer of the Complainant. Lastly, on 19.03.2018 complainant also sent a petition under Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to OP No. 1/Bank. The cause of action arose on and from 19.03.2018. It has been alleged that the OP/Bank wilfully and intentionally avoided their liability despite clear instruction from the end of the concerned Government Authority. The Complainant was compelled to file the petition of complaint praying for return of the amount of Rs. 2,97,203/- and Rs. 20,000/- as fixed deposit with interest @ 12% from 09.02.2018 (last payment) till realization and compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for mental agony and litigation cost and other expenses amounting to Rs. 20,000/-.
The present Respondents as OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3 contested the said complaint case by filing joint written version. Denying all the material allegations as brought in the petition of complaint the OPs categorically admitted that the Complainant obtained the said loan and also repaid the entire amount with interest and the Opposite Party/Bank also returned all the material documents lying with the Bank after such repayment of the loan amount. It has been specifically contended that the OP/Bank also returned the Complainant's share amounting to Rs. 6,660/- and his membership was ceased on and from 09.02.2018. It has been also contended that the Complainant did not obtain any agricultural loan from the OPs/Bank and there was no mention as agricultural loan free in the order passed by the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur vide memo no. 622(9)/XVII dated 05.09.2013. According to the OPs they have had no liabilities to pay any compensation as sought for by the Complainant in the petition of complaint and that the Complainant did not furnish any relevant document to establish his claim. The OPs/Bank prayed for outright dismissal of the complaint case with costs.
After considering the pleadings of the respective parties to the complaint case and having considered the evidence (both oral and documentary) on record adduced from the end of the respective parties to the case Ld. Commission below was pleased to dismiss the petition of complaint on contest against the OPs/Bank. Ld. Commission below was further pleased to direct the parties to bear their own cost.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above judgment and order of the Ld. District Commission the Complainant as Appellant has preferred the present appeal on various grounds as highlighted in the body of the memorandum of appeal. It has been canvassed much that the Ld. District Commission passed the impugned order simply basing upon the assumptions and presumptions completely ignoring the material facts of the case; that the impugned order of the Ld. District Commission is misconceived, erroneous and contrary to the law; that the Ld. District Commission failed to exercise judicial mind and caused material irregularity and illegality; that the Ld. District Commission arrived at a wrong conclusion basing upon erroneous findings which are far away from the actual state of affairs; that the Ld. District Commission failed to appreciate that the Respondents being the custodian of the Government orders and notifications had deliberately and intentionally suppressed the Government order and notification causing serious injustice to the Appellant/Complainant; that the Ld. District Commission committed serious error in overlooking the crucial fact that the agriculture debt waiver and debt reliefs scheme, 2008 as produced by the Respondents/Bank was an age old document having no force; On all such grounds the Appellant has prayed for allowing the present appeal after setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Ld. Commission below was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order.
Whether the Ld. Commission below has committed gross irregularity and illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order.
Whether the impugned judgment and order deserve interference of this Appellate Authority.
Whether the impugned judgment and order can be sustained in the eye of law.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS All the above points are taken up together for the brevity of discussion and in order to avoid unnecessary repetitions. Moreover, all the above points are interlinked and interrelated with each other.
During the course of hearing Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant took an agricultural loan from the Respondents/Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Two Lakhs) only through his loan account no. 1106316001 out of which Rs. 10,000/- on 10.06.2011 and the remaining Rs. 10,000/- on 20.06.2011 were sanctioned respectively. It has been argued that the Appellant had to deposit Rs. 20,000/- towards fixed deposit as pre condition to avail of such loan. It has been further urged that on 18.07.2012 the Appellant paid the first instalment to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- as the principal amount and Rs. 2,175/- as interest within the stipulated period. Ld. Counsel has vehemently urged that two major incidents occurred in the life of the Appellant firstly, the Appellant became seriously ill and was lying in bed ridden condition from the month of February, 2013, secondly, a devastating flood was occurred in the locality of the Appellant due to nonstop rain causing ultimate damage and destruction of all the crops in the fields of the said Mouzas. It has been argued much that the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur and the State Government assessing the severity of the flood situation were pleased to declare the said zone as flood affected area and further pleased to declare the said Mouzas as loan free zone and the said news was duly published in the newspaper on 14.09.2013. It has been alleged that knowing all the Government orders and notifications the Respondents/Bank did not bother to remit back the said loan of the Appellant. According to the Ld. Counsel the Respondents/Bank are duty bound to waive the loan of the Appellant/Complainant as per order of the Government of West Bengal and to return back the entire sum in favour of the Appellant. Ld. Counsel has prayed for allowing the present appeal after setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the Ld. Commission below.
On the other hand Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Bank has submitted that the subject matter for adjudication in the petition of complaint is a dispute as defined under Section 102(1)(b) read with Section 4(25) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006. Section 102(4) specifically provides the bar of jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to try any dispute as mentioned in sub-Section (1) of Section 102. According to the Ld. Counsel the complaint case is not at all maintainable in the eye of Law and as such liable to be dismissed in limini. It has been unequivocally admitted that the Appellant/Complainant already repaid the entire loan on 09.02.2018 with agreed interest thereon on 09.02.2018. It has been vehemently urged that those notifications were applicable for flood affected areas only and there was no mention towards waiver of the agricultural loan. Ld. Counsel has also submitted that the Appellant as Complainant filed the petition of complaint due to misconception and ignorance of Law. He has prayed for outright dismissal of the appeal with costs.
The Xerox copy of Government order (Disaster Management Department) goes to indicate that a list of affected Mouzas where crops were damaged above 50% due to flood during Kharif season 2013-2014 was prepared. The then District Magistrate and collector of Purba Medinipur placed the said list before the Government of West Bengal, Disaster Management Department. Practically, there is no whisper about the waiver of loan by the District Administration.
Admittedly, the Appellant took loan from the Respondents/Bank and duly repaid the said loan with interest by instalments from 18.07.2012 to 09.02.2018 and accordingly the Respondents/Bank handed over all the relevant papers and documents to the Complainant maintaining the formalities. The loan account was duly closed and the membership of the Appellant was ceased on and from 09.02.2018. The order of the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur vide memo no. 622(9)/XVII dated 05.09.2013 goes to establish that there was no mention of waiving the agricultural loan by the Government at that relevant time. In fact, no such declaration of waiver of agricultural loan for the affected mouzas was passed from the end of the District Magistrate.
The Appellant/Complainant produced a copy of order of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi dated 28.05.2008 on the caption "Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, implementation of Circular 1/2008. The said circular provides- i) only those agricultural loans which fulfil all the three conditions i.e. disburse between March 31, 1997 and March 31, 2007 b) overdue on December 31, 2007 and c) remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008 will be eligible for debt waiver/debt relief under the said Scheme. The Appellant/Complainant could not produce any substantial evidence or authentic document to prove that the administration of West Bengal waived the said loan at that relevant point of time. No iota of evidence has come on record. The Appellant/Complainant also failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that he took the said loan for the purpose of agriculture. It is to be remembered that the Appellant/Complainant obtained the said loan in the year 2011. Thus being the position the Government orders or notifications do not come any assistance/help to the case of the Appellant/Complainant. Undoubtedly, Appellant/complainant obtained the said loan on 10.06.2011 and 20.06.2011 respectively and also repaid the same and as such the circular of the Government of India is not relevant and applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
Considering all aspects from all angles and having considered the submissions of both sides and keeping in mind the pleadings of the respective parties we are compelled to hold that there are no error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Commission in connection with the complaint case being no. CC/224/2018. We also hold that the Ld. Commission below was totally justified in the approach and ultimate conclusion. In our considered view the impugned judgment and order deserve to be sustained in the eye of Law.
No interference is required.
All the above points are thus answered against the Appellant.
Thus, the present Appeal fails.
It is, therefore, O R D E R E D That the present Appeal being no. A/171/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondents/Bank but considering the circumstances without any order as to costs.
The impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk in connection with complaint case no. CC/224/2018 are hereby affirmed.
Let a copy of this judgment and order be transmitted to the Ld. Commission below forthwith for information and taking necessary action.
Thus, the Appeal stands disposed of.
Interim order, if any, be vacated forthwith.
Note accordingly. [HON'BLE MRS. Dipa Sen ( Maity )] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. SUBHRA SANKAR BHATTA] JUDICIAL MEMBER