Raj Kumar Srivastava vs BRANCH MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.3.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kushi Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 280/99.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Sri Raj Kumar Srivastava was working as Secretary of the Sadhan Sahkari Samiti and he was directed to purchase a scooter for which bank loan was to be given by the opposite party, Branch Manager, District Co-operative Bank (Evening Branch), Padrauna. Accordingly a scooter was purchased by the complainant and loan was advanced by the Co-operative Bank, recovery of which was to be made from his monthly pay. Because of the prolonged illness of the complainant the loan could not be paid in time. There were orders from the Assistant Registar, Co-operative Society that the amount of loan was to be deducted from the salary of the complainant at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month but due to negligence of the officials concerned such deductions were not made from the salary of the complainant. Recovery proceedings were, therefore, initiated by the Bank and through the revenue staff which includes the Tehsildar and the Collection Amin, recovery proceedings were drawn against the complainant. An amount of Rs. 28,420/- was recovered from him and the amount of outstanding shown against the complainant was Rs. 37,599/- whereas the advance taken was only for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was to be recovered from the salary of the complainant and the recovery certificate could not have been issued. A claim was, therefore, lodged before the District Consumer Forum for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 28,420/- alongwith interest @ 18%. A compensation for Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical harassment and loss of prestige was also claimed alongwith the cost of proceedings amounting to Rs. 600/-. It was also claimed that the recovery proceedings be withdrawn. In the written version before District Consumer Forum, the case of opposite party, District Co-operative Bank (Evening Branch) Padrauna, was that the complaint was not maintainable and claim has been lodged in order to ward off the consequences of the recovery proceedings. It was admitted that the loan was taken from the Bank by the complainant for purchase of motor cycle but the loan could not be recovered from the salary of the complainant because of the fact that he remained under suspension from time to time. Notices were also given to the complainant for recovery of loan but the same remained unpaid. Therefore, the Bank had to resort the recovery proceedings for failure of the complainant in repaying the loan.

The District Consumer Forum after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the claim has been lodged because of the recovery proceedings and, therefore, the complaint was baseless. Therefore, the Forum dismissed the complaint and also allowed a cost of Rs. 100/- to be paid to the opposite party No. 2.

AGGRIEVED of this order of the District Consumer Forum the complainant Raj Kumar Srivastava has filed this appeal. Notices were issued to the respondents to appear on 17.8.2000 on the date of hearing but none appeared on their behalf on that date. Ex parte arguments of Mr. B.K. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the appellant were heard.

WE have gone through the evidence on record. A perusal of the complaint case goes to show that the complainant has admitted that he could not repay the loan in time. In the complaint he has pleaded that recovery was to be made from his monthly salary and recovery certificate could not have been issued. It is, therefore, clear that to avoid payment of loan alongwith the interest the complainant lodged the claim before the District Consumer Forum. The complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum as there is no deficiency on the part of the Bank. The Bank is duty bound to recover the loan and since the loan was not being repaid by the complainant the Bank was entitled to affect recovery through the recovery certificate. In the process it was the duty of the Collection Amin, opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 3, Tehsildar, to take up the recovery proceedings. Therefore, opposite parties 2 and 3 cannot be held guilty of deficiency of any service. These officials were duty bound to affect the recovery. The District Consumer Forum has rightly held that the complaint is baseless. WE, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the orders dated 24.3.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kushi Nagar. Thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, Kushi Nagar dated 24.3.2000 in Complaint Case No. 280/99 are confirmed and the complaint is dismissed. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.