BIHAR STATE SCHEDULED CASTES CO,OP DEVELOPMENT CORP & ANR Vs KRISHNA RAM

Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocate on behalf for Shri Krishna Ram, complainant has filed his vakalatnama in both the cases which are taken on record.

In F.A. No.4163/2009

It is stated by Shri Vijay Kumar, ld. counsel for complainant that he does not want to press the revision petition filed on behalf of petitioner and wants to withdraw the same.

In view of the above statement given by ld. counsel for complainant, Revision Petition No.4163 of 2009 stand dismissed as withdrawn.

In F.A. No.87/2009

Heard.

Brief facts are that complainant- Mr. Krishna Ram was sanctioned a loan of Rupees One Lac by Bihar State Scheduled Caste Cooperative Development Corporation, Patna/OppositeParty for Poultry Farm business under Anuvini Scheme. He was asked to deposit 5% as promotor''s amount. A sum of Rs.50,000/- by cheque was given to the complainant for construction of shed, which was received by him on 29.12.1998. Opposite parties by letter no.268 dated 23.12.1998 directed the approved supplier Shri Om Prakash, Patna to supply 1000 chicks to the complainant. After paying Rs.50,000/- for the construction of shed, opposite parties showed utter negligence in paying rest amount of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of chicks and also showed negligence in granting receipt of Rs.5,000/- towards the promotor''s amount. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on its part.

Opposite parties contested the complaint and filed its written statement stating that complaint was barred by time and complainant failed to deposit the Promoter''s amount of Rs.5,000/-. It denied the allegation that completion report of the shed was not accepted by Palamau District Office of Corporation at Dalltonganj. It was also stated that balance amount of working capital was paid to the approved supplier for supplying chicks. Thereafter, it was complainant''s duty to receive chicks from the supplier. A Criminal case was also filed against the said approved supplier for misappropriation of Govt. money. According to the opposite parties nothing remained to be paid out of the loan amount to the complainant.

District Forum, vide order dated 22.12.2006 partly allowed the complaint and ordered that, opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for mental agony etc. and to pay Rs.50,000/- + Rs.10,000/- total Rs.60,000/- alongwith 12% interest.

Being aggrieved, Opposite Party filed First Appeal No.585 of 2007 before the State Commission.

The State Commission partly allowed the appeal of the opposite party and modified the order passed by the District Forum and ordered that; "a) A sum of Rs.24,500/- lying in deposit in Palamau District Branch of the Commission be released to him by way of working capital according to the provisions of the scheme.

b) A sum of Rs.20,500/- given earlier to supply 1000 chicks, which was not supplied, be given by the Corporation to another approved supplier for the said purpose.

c) For the deficiency in service on the part of the Corporation in not arranging supply of chicks and other materials for poultry farm business and releasing balance amount of working capital and thereby causing loss, suffering and mental agony to him, a sum of Rs.10,000/- be paid as compensation."

Not satisfied with the order of State Commission, Opposite party filed Revision Petition No.87/2009 for dismissing the complaint, whereas complainant filed Revision Petition No.4163/2008 for enhancement.

Loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant in year 1997-98, that is about 17 years ago. The Consumer complaint was filed in the year 2004. Thus, more than 11 years have lapsed. Even otherwise, concurrent findings of facts in favour of the complainant. Now, a paltry sum of Rs.50,000/- only is involved in this case. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this petition, in view of the decision of Apex Court in "Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani and another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC), where Apex Court observed; "2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers'' skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category."

The Apex Court further held;

"10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers'' office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of Rs.15000/-,even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of Rs.12,950/- leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to Rs.15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for Rs.15,000/-.

Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani.

We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court.

Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.

We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether Rs.25,950/- for a claim of Rs.15,000/-, apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins."

Above quoted observations of the Apex Court, with all force are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Under these circumstances, as a paltry amount of about Rs.50,000/- only is involved and petitioner being a Govt. Undertaking, we are not inclined to entertain these revisions. However, question of law raised in this petition, is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case where the stakes are high.

In view of the above observation, Revision Petition No.87 of 2009 stand disposed of.

Dasti.