Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA
Dipa Sen (Maity), Presiding Member and Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Judicial Member
Puranjan Maiti – Appellant
versus
The Chief Administrative
Officer and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.A/171 of 2019
Decided on 6.4.2023
For the Appellant:Binoy Ch. Dhara, Mr. B.K. Metya, Advocates
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Services – Co-operative Societies – Loan - West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 - Appeal – Waiver of Loan - 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 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 – On facts, Appeal dismissed. [Paras 9 to 18].
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 an
