1 F.A.No. :21/11
Date of filing:11.01.2011
Date of order:30.10.2013
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 21 OF 2011
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. : 24 OF 2010
DISTRICT FORUM : DHULE.
Central Bank of India,
Central Office at "Chandramukhi",
Building Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 &
Zonal Office at 317, M.G.Road,
Camp Pune, & Branch Office at Village Mukti,
Taluka & Dist. Dhule, through its
Branch Manager Mr.Satish Pitambar Kadam,
Central Bank of India,
Mukti Branch, District Dhule. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
Smt.Sangeeta Ramesh Patil,
R/o Village Mukti,
Tq. & Dist.Dhule. ...RESPONDENT.
Coram : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.D.B.Dabholkar for appellant.
O R A L JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 30th October 2013)
Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1.
This appeal is an exception to the judgment and order dated
29.11.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum Dhule partly allowing
2 F.A.No. :21/11
the consumer complaint No.24/2010 directing appellant/opponent bank
to issue no dues certificate to the respondent/complainant under loan
waiver scheme and further to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- for causing
mental torture and Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceedings.
(For the sake of brevity appellant bank is hereinafter referred as
‘opponent bank’ and respondent as ‘complainant’.)
2. We heard Shri.Dabholkar proxy advocate appearing for appellant
and with his consent decided to dispose of this appeal at the stage of
admission.
3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Complainant Smt.Janyabai is an agriculturist having agriculture
field admeasuring 2 hector 49R at village Mukti Tq. & Dist.Dhule. In the
month of May 2004 complainant had borrowed loan of Rs.50,000/- from
opponent bank. In the year 2008 Government of Maharashtra launched
Agriculture Loan Waiver Scheme-2008. Under the same scheme the
agriculturist having holding more than 2 hector is entitled to get benefit
of the same scheme only up to 25% or Rs.20,000/- whichever is more.
However, according to the complainant she is entitled to get 100% benefit
of the same scheme and accordingly she applied to the opponent bank
for getting benefit. However, opponent bank informed the complainant
that she is entitled to get benefit of 25% or Rs.20,000/- and accordingly
opponent bank granted the same facility and given exemption for
repayment of loan Rs.20,000/-. Therefore by notice dated 25.6.2009 the
complainant claimed 100% exemption. Opponent bank denied the same
notice giving reply. Therefore complainant has filed consumer complaint
alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent bank and claimed
100% exemption from repayment of loan and direction to issue no dues
3 F.A.No. :21/11
certificate. She has also claimed compensation Rs.10,000/- and
Rs.5000/- from towards cost of the proceedings.
4. Opponent bank resisted the complaint by its written version
contending inter alia that complainant is entitled to get exemption only
up to Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly that benefit is already given to her.
Therefore there was no any deficiency in service on its part. It has
submitted to dismiss the complaint.
5. On hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record,
District Consumer Forum held that complainant is entitled to get 100%
benefit of the same scheme and therefore opponent bank committed
deficiency in service denying 100% benefit. In keeping with this finding
District Consumer Forum has partly allowed the complaint as noted
above.
6. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order opponent bank has
filed this appeal.
7. We heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, perused the
copy of impugned judgment and order and copies of complaint, written
version and copy of State Government circular pertain to the Agriculture
Loan Waiver Scheme-2008. However, we have had no opportunity to hear
the complainant as she remained absent despite service of notice and
therefore appeal is proceeded exparte against her. Almost all the facts
except the percentage of benefit of the said scheme are not disputed. It is
submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that
complainant is being an agriculturist holding more than 2 Hectors land
is entitled to get benefit of scheme to the extent of 25% or Rs.20,000/-
whichever is more. But she is not at all entitled to get 100% benefit.
However, the complainant has falsely claimed that she is entitled for
4 F.A.No. :21/11
100%. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant
has pointed out from the copy of the said circular that as per circular
agriculturist having agriculture land holding more than 2 hector, is
entitled to get limited benefit as pointed out above. On perusal of circular
and undisputed fact that the complainant is having agriculture land
holding 2 hectors, we find much force in the learned counsel appearing
for appellant.
8. However, on perusal of copy of complaint it reflects that
complainant has averred that she is holding agriculture land
admeasuring less than 2 hector. According to her 32R land belonging to
her is acquired by the Government etc. and therefore she has claimed
that she is having agriculture land holding less than 2 hectors etc. But
on perusal of 7/12 extract it manifests that complainant was holding 2
hector 49R of land and if 32R land is acquired by Government still she is
holding more than 2 hectors land. Therefore contention of complainant
that she is holding less than 2 hector land cannot be sustained. But it
appears from the copy of impugned judgment and order that the District
Consumer Forum without considering all these undisputed facts jumped
to the wrong conclusion that complainant is entitled to get 100% benefit
of the same Government scheme. Such erroneous finding cannot be
sustained.
9. In the result, opponent bank succeeds and appeal deserves to be
allowed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order is set
aside.
5 F.A.No. :21/11
2. Consumer complaint stands dismissed.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
sd/- Sd/- Sd/- K.B.Gawali Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole, Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane
