JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Pampapathi President:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainants 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to refund an amount of Rs. 5,95,565/- as per the benefit under the scheme with mental agony and cost of litigation.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, complainants Nos. 1 & 2 are agriculturists they have got 48 acres of irrigated land and dry lands they availed loan from the opposites bank for agricultural purposes and raising of crops in their lands, thereafter they have repaid the entire loan amount as per the demand made by the opposites. The mortgage deed executed by them as a collateral security opposites executed re-conveyance deed, there was an Agricultural Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme in 2008 which came into force from 01-04-08. As per the said scheme they are entitled to get 25% of the rebate in the loan amount to the extent of Rs. 1,97,299/-. The opposites not gave benefit of the scheme to them, as such they requested the opposites in oral as well as in writing to refund the rebate amount of 25% of the loan amount, but they shown their negligence in considering their request and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services, accordingly they filed this complaint for the reliefs as noted in it.<br /> <br /> 3. The Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their Advocate and filed a written version by contending that the complainant Nos. 1 & 2 are not an agriculturist. Complainant No-1 is a practicing advocate. Complainant No-2 is a housewife, both of them have mentioned in their loan application as complainant No-1 is a practicing as an Advocate in lower court. The source of income is also shown, all the particulars furnished by them shows that they are not the agriculturists, the loan sanctioned to them is not an agricultural loan. The mode of repayment of the loan made by the complainants was not a agricultural loan. The application given by them is also not an agricultural loan application. As per the loan agreement, complainants repaid the loan amount in installments for which their house was mortgaged, there was an irregular payments in the installments. The benefit of the debt relief scheme 2008 is not applicable to the loan of complainants they are not entitled for any kind of rebate in repayment of the loan as contended by them. All other allegations made against them are specifically denied, this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter, as it involves complex questions of law and facts. <br /> <br /> 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are <br /> that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainants proves that they obtained loan amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the opposite bank by executing mortgage deed of their house and landed properties as a collateral security for agricultural developments and raising crops in their lands and thereafter they repaid the entire loan amount. But opposites bank refused to give benefit of rebate of 25% i.e, to the extent of Rs. 1,97,299/- in the total loan amount as provided under Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 they shown their negligence in refunding the said amount inspite of their oral and written request and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether complainants are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?<br /> <br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In the negative.<br /> <br /> (2) In the negative.<br /> <br /> (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed <br /> to pass the final order for the following :<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1 & 2:-<br /> <br /> 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant No-1 was filed, who was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-19 are marked. On the other hand the affidavit-evidence of the Manager of opposites bank was filed he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9 are marked.<br /> <br /> 7. From the facts pleaded by the parties with their respective affidavit-evidences and their documents, it is a fact that complainant Nos. 1 & 2 availed the loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- on 29-01-05 from the opposite bank by executing simple mortgage deed of their house at Raichur. It is undisputed fact that complainants have repaid the entire loan amount to the opposite bank and thereafter opposites have executed registered re-conveyance deed in favour of the complainants. It is further undisputed facts between the parties, that Government has launched the scheme by name as Agricultural Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme of 2008 to give benefit to the farmers who availed agricultural loan for development of the lands agricultural and that benefit was not given to complainants by the opposite bank.<br /> <br /> 8. With these undisputed facts, we have to see the case of complainants who contended before us that they are falling under 3rd category of the scheme which is known as the “category of the other farmers” and they availed loan for agricultural purposes and for raising the crop in their lands. Hence they are entitled to get rebate benefit of 25% in the loan amount, but opposites are denied the said benefit to them. <br /> <br /> 9. In order to prove these contentions by the complainants in the background of denial of such contentions by the opposites. Documents Ex.P-8 was relied by the complainant Ex.P-8 is the re-conveyance deed executed by the opposites, after satisfaction of the loan wherein opposites have clearly admitted for the loan borrowed by the complainants is an agricultural loan.<br /> <br /> 10. On the other hand, the opposites relied on documents Ex.P-11, it is a letter written by the opposites wherein it is contended that the loan borrowed by the complainant is not a agricultural loan. Further they have relied on the Ex.P-1 the loan application, Ex.R-2 is the mortgage deed, Ex.R-3 the loan sanction proceedings. It is contended by them that in case of agricultural loan finance limit is to be fixed on loan development base whereas in case of a complainant case, limit has been fixed on the value of the house of complainant treating it as a mortgage loan under personal segment and monthly EMI fixed and recovered instead of from the proceeds of a crop grown.<br /> <br /> 11. In the light of contentions and rival contentions to the parties before this forum, first we have to decide as to whether the complainants are agriculturist falling under category of the other farmers as a enumerated in Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, to decide it we have to appreciate the various documents as referred above to come to a conclusion that the present complainants are farmers or not.<br /> <br /> 12. Secondly we have to decide as to whether the loan borrowed by the complainants is an agricultural loan are not, to decide this fact, we have to appreciate the loan application form Ex.P-1, mortgage deed Ex.R-2 and re-conveyance deed Ex.R-8 and other documents. Ex.R-2 & Ex.P-8 are require to appreciate in the light of the detail evidence of the parties and their intentions for executing those documents, in the light of various provisions under Transfer of Property Act. Apart from the intention and evidences of parties and the documents referred above, we have to go through the number of rulings referred by the complainants as well as opposites. In the said circumstances, this Consumer Forum is not having jurisdiction to decide all such facts and to give findings on the said documents as reliefs prayed are falling outside the scope and embit of section 14 of the C.P. Act and also this Forum has no jurisdiction to give such findings as it is not a simple case of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 13. In this regard we have referred the rulings reported in (II) (1994) CPJ 456 Harbans & Company V/s. State Bank of India and 1995 (I) CLT (6) (NP) Prabhat Company alied Ind V/s. Allahabad Bank.<br /> <br /> 14. In the said two rulings, their lordships have observed as when case involves determination of complex questions of facts and laws which cannot be satisfactorily determined by the redressal agency in the time frame provided under this Act, it would be better for the complainants to seek redressal of his grievance in a Civil Court, if so advised.<br /> <br /> 15. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above with regard to the case of complainants and opposites, we are of the view that the principles as held by their lordships in the rulings referred above are aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case on hand, in which complex questions of facts involved and this Forum cannot decide such kind of dispute within the time frame provided under the act without detail examinations of the witnesses and detail appreciation of the documentary evidences referred above. Hence we are of the view that, it is better for the complainants to seek redressal of their grievances in an appropriate court, if so advised. Hence we have not found any deficiency in service on the part of these opposites, accordingly we answered Point No. 1 in negative. <br /> <br /> 16. The complainant themselves failed in proving Point No-1 and thereby they are not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point No.2 in negative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> <br /> 17. In view of our finding on Point No-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint filed by the complainants 1 & 2 is dismissed.<br /> <br /> All the parties are hereby directed to bear their own respective cost. <br /> <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-09-09)<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> Member. Member. President, <br /> Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />