RAJ DEO PANDEY vs BRANCH MANAGER, GORAKHPUR REGIONAL RURAL BANK

THIS is an appeal filed by Raj Deo Pandey and Arti daughter of Ramcheez Pandey, against the judgment and order dated 25.4.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Deoria, in Complaint Case No. 856/97.

THE case of the complainant before the District Forum was that in February, 1989 a loan for agricultural operation was advanced by the opposite party No. 1, Gramin Bank amounting to Rs. 1,500/- to the complainant Raj Deo Pandey. A loan of the equal amount for the same purpose was also advanced to the brother of the complainant, Sri Rajvanshi Pandey in February, 1989. Sri Rajvanshi Pandey has since died, another complainant Arti was also advanced an amount of Rs. 2,500/- as loan for agricultural operations in February, 1989 by the same opposite party, the Gramin Bank. THE loan was to be used for seed and fertilizer. On 12.7.1990 the Government of Uttar Pradesh promulgated a Scheme for debt relief according to which all the loans advanced till 1989 upto the extent of Rs. 10,000/- were to be exempted but the loans advanced to the complainants were not exempted. THE debt relief for which the complainants were entitled was not given by the opposite party No. 1 Gramin Bank and the recovery certificates for the amount of loan alongwith interest were issued against them. A claim was, therefore, lodged before the District Consumer Forum that the complainants be exempted from the loan of Rs. 5,500/-. The opposite party, Gramin Bank, in its written version bfore the District Consumer Forum stated that the claim was not maintainable before the District Forum and the same has been lodged in order to avoid the recovery proceedings. It was admitted that the loan of Rs. 1,500/- was advanced to the complainant No. 1 in February, 1989. Further a loan of Rs. 2,500/- was advanced to the complainant No. 2 for agricultural operations in February, 1989 but both the complainants were not entitled to the relief provided under the Debt Relief Scheme of the Government as per the provisions made in the Debt Relief Scheme. It was applicable only to those persons whose loans had become payable for 3 years and above. Since the complainants had taken loan in February, 1989 the same were not payable till October, 1989 and were not covered under the Scheme of the Government. Therefore, the complainants were not entitled to any relief. The complainants were informed by the Bank of this fact on 25.2.1991.

The District Consumer Forum after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the complainants were not entitled to debt relief and, therefore, dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED of the order of the District Consumer Forum the complainants have come in this appeal. Notices were issued to the respondents for hearing of the appeal on 17.8.2000 but none was present on the date of hearing on their behalf. Ex-parte arguments of the appellant''s Counsel Mr. B.K. Upadhyaya were heard.

WE have gone through the evidence on record. A perusal of the scheme for debt relief goes to show that the loans in question advanced by the opposite party Gramin Bank were not covered under the scheme of debt relief. Only those loans were to be exempted from recovery which had become due for more than 3 years in 1989. The complainants have taken loans in February, 1989. It appears that the complainants with a view to ward off the recovery proceedings initiated against them lodged a complaint before the District Consumer Forum. Claims against which recovery proceedings have been initiated cannot be raised before the District Consumer Forum. The authorities of the State Government like the Collection Amin and District Collector are required to execute the loan recovery orders and there is no deficiency of service on their part. As far as the Bank is concerned, it was within its right to recover the loan advanced to the complainants as per rules and the Bank rightly initiated the recovery proceedings as the complainants were not entitled to any relief under the scheme of the State Government. In the circumstances the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum cannot be interfered and are perfectly right. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum are confirmed and the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there would be no order as to cost. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.