- (1.) This revisional application is one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against order No. 9 dated 8-7-2004 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Hooghly in connection with CDF Case No. 38 of 2004.
(2.) The said case was brought by the present Opposite party against the present petitioner with prayer for directing the present petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the Opposite Party No. 1. The present Opposite Party also prayed for relief regarding rectification and adjustment of the amount in the pass book. The present Opposite Party also prayed for passing appropriate order directing the present petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation.
(3.) The fact leading to filing of the said case may be summed up thus :- (i) The present Opposite Party along with his wife approached the Hooghly Co-operative and Agricultural Development Bank for financial assistance in purchasing a tractor. (ii) The bank sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,23,029/- by order dated 6-2-1999. (iii) It is the case of the present Opposite Party that though the rate of interest was agreed to be @ 15% per annum, the Bank charged interest @ 17.5% per annum. (iv) It is the specific case of the Opposite Party that the bank did not issue pass book for a long period in spite of repeated demands. (v) It is the further case of the Opposite Party who filed the said application before the Forum under Section 12 of CP Act that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was deducted from the loan amount towards asset recovery management cost on 25-6-2002. Finding no other alternative the Opposite Party i.e. the petitioner before the Forum filed one writ application which was numbered as 7799 (w) of 2002. The Hon'ble single Judge disposed of the said writ application with the direction upon the writ applicant to file representation before the Bank. (vi) Thereafter the writ petitioner filed representation before the Bank which was rejected. (vii) Thereafter the present Opposite Party filed the case before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Hooghly with prayer as mentioned earlier. (viii) The Bank contested the sale case by filing written objection. The Bank took the specific plea that the case is not maintainable as per Section 95 of the Act. (ix) It is the further plea of the bank that the Registrar of Co-operative Society has the jurisdiction to entertain such complaint under the W.B.C.S. Act. The Bank also took the specific plea that if the present Opposite party had any grievance, he could have filed application before the Co-operative Tribunal. (x) The Forum after due consideration of materials on record allowed the application and directed the present petitioner to credit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the petitioner in his loan account. However, the forum refused to pass any order of compensation.;