SHIV KUMAR vs Sohan Lal

THIS is an appeal filed by Sri Shiv Kumar, resident of Asandra, District Barabanki, against the judgment and order dated 19.2.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Barabanki in Complaint Case No. 39/1994.

THE case of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that he had taken loan from Gramin Bank, Asandra, under the Scheme of Special Component Plan for upliftment of Schedule Caste. Under the plan margin money @ 25% of the project was allowed by the U.P. Schedule Caste Finance Corporation and a loan of Rs. 5,000 / - was advanced by the Gramin Bank at interest @ 4% per annum. Subsidy was also admissible on the 50% part of the loan. Accordingly on 16.2.1984 a loan of Rs. 5,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant. THE Gramin Bank did not credit into the account of the complainant the amount of subsidy admissible to the loan and the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 7,471 /-. Recovery proceedings for recovery of Rs. 9,154/- alongwith collection charges have been taken against him and a recovery certificate was issued to this effect. Since the recovery proceedings had been initiated against the complainant, he filed a claim before the District Consumer Forum. The opposite parties did not contest the claim before the District Consumer Forum and an ex-parte order on merit was passed by the Forum. The Forum dismissed the complaint as not maintainable.

Aggrieved of this order, the complainant Shiv Kumar has come in this appeal.

WE have heard the appellant who was present in person and the Counsel for the respondent Mr. Abdul Moin. A perusal of the record goes to show that the loan in question was sanctioned in -the year 1984 under the Special Component Plan of the State Government. A part of the loan was cleared by the complainant and for the remaining part alongwith the interest recovery proceedings were drawn against the complainant. These recovery proceedings were started sometime in early 1994. Since it is a matter where recovery proceedings are involved, the same will not attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as the deficiency of service has not been pointed out. The complaint has been lodged against the Collection Amin of the Tahsil who is required to recover the dues as per Recovery Certificate issued by the Bank. No specific deficiency of service has been pointed out against the Branch Manager of the Gramin Bank. In the circumstances the District Consumer Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint and there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Forum. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum are confirmed and the complaint is dismissed. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.