BARODA U P GRAMIN BANK THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH & 4 ORS S/O LT RAJ MANI SINGH; DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O LT RAJ MANI SINGH; GIRENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O LT RAJ MANI SINGH; DAYA NAND SINGH S/O LT RAJ MANI SINGH; SAROJ SINGH, W/O LT RAJ MANI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, we are constrained to observe that despite scathing observations by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani and Anr., 2012 8 SCC 781, the Petitioner herein, i.e. Baroda U.P. Gramin Bank, has still chosen to drag the legal heirs of late Shri Raj Mani Singh, a Farmer, who had taken a loan of paltry sum of Rs. 60,000/-, under the Agricultural Credit Card, which amount, according to the Respondents/Complainants, was required to be waived off under the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, launched by the Government of India.

(2.) The Petitioner having failed to comply with mandatory condition of pre-deposit, in terms of Second Proviso to Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") was left with no option but to dismiss their Appeal, vide order dated 07.10.2016, impugned in the present Revision Petition.

(3.) Regard being had to the fact that the principal amount involved in the case was only Rs. 60,000/- and both the Fora below had recorded a concurrent finding of fact that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in rejecting Complainants' prayer for writing off the aforesaid debt, vide order dated 09.08.2017, learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner, was asked to seek instructions as to whether in light of the afore-noted decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present Revision Petition was to be pressed. After obtaining one more opportunity to seek instructions on the said order, learned Counsel now submits that he has instructions to press the present Revision Petition, as it involves substantial questions of law.