BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.77/2009

Between

Complainant : K.S.Narayanan, S/o Sankaran,

Kizhakkeveettil,

Konnathady P.O,

Muthirappuzha,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: K.J.Thomas)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Panchayath Shopping Complex,

Vellathooval,

Idukki District.

2. The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Regional Business Office,

Thirunakkara, Kottayam – 686 001.

(Both by Adv: K.V. Kurian)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

The complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party bank as loan No.30039492620 in the scheme "ATL Reclamation & Land" and Rs.2,23,504/- as loan No.10561876382 in HTL scheme in the name of the complainant and his wife. Another loan of Rs.1,25,000/- as loan No.30039486707 in KCC Scheme from the opposite party. The loan availed as per Kissan Credit Card(KCC) scheme has entitled to get the benefit of write off scheme introduced by the Government as per the notification. But the opposite party included only Rs.1,23,757/- in the write off scheme. The balance and interest Rs.36,502/- was not included and a demand notice was issued for the same. As per the notification No.41/08 dated 5.06.2008 of the Co-operative Registrar office and the circular dated 23.05.2008 of NABARD, the complainant is a small scale agriculturist and he is entitled to get the benefit of write off for the entire amount for the KCC loan. Complainant and wife mortgaged their 2 acres 68 cents of land in Sy.No.137/7 of Konnathady Village to the opposite party bank for the security of the loan. The duration of loan for ATL Scheme is 7 years. The period of HTL loan is for 15 years. The complainant paid Rs.30,000/- on 24.03.2009 in that HTL loan account. The opposite party on 20.03.2008 issued a notice under Section 32 of SRFAESI Act 2002 demanding Rs.4,34,505/- within 60 days. They affixed a notice stating that the property was possessed by the opposite party as per Section 13(4) of the Act. The opposite party is not having any right to take possession of the property. As per Section 31(1) of the SRFAESI Act, the agricultural land never includes in the provisions of this Act. So the petition is filed for getting compensation and also for cancelling the notice issued by the opposite party.
 

2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, the matter in dispute is one under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act 2002 and it is not maintainable as per the Consumer Protection Act. The main contention raised by the complainant is to get Rs.36,052/- under KCC loan to get waived. According to Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, implementation Circular 1/08 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services dated 28.05.2008 in Clause 2(XIV) short term production credit will include working capital loan upto Rs.1,00,000/- for traditional, non-traditional plantation and Horticulture. This means that working capital loans for these categories will be reckoned only upto Rs.1,00,000/- and of this reckoned sum only the irregular amounts(over dues) as on 31^st December 2007 will be eligible for waiver of OTS relief and not the entire sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant have availed loan of Rs.1,25,000/- under the KCC Scheme on 2.03.2006, out of which he is eligible for waiver to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only. The complainant have made representation before the Grievance Redressal Officer, SBI, Thiruvananthapuram and in continuation of the same, the complainant was informed on 15.01.2009 that his KCC loan is waived by Rs.1,00,000/- as principal and Rs.23,757/- as interest. So as per the direction in the above mentioned circular with respect to the limit, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- as principal and its interest. Hence he is not eligible to get waiver for that remaining amount of Rs.36,052/- in the KCC loan as principal and interest. The property mortgaged to the bank is not an agricultural property and hence not exempted under section 31 of the Securitisation Act. The HTL availed by the complainant is highly overdue and hence the opposite party is fully entitled to resort to the remedies provided by Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002. The action initiated by the opposite parties under the above mentioned Act is intended to realise the entire outstanding due amount from the complainant in the HTL, ATL and KCC loans other than the amounts already waived. So the complainant is not entitled to get any cost or compensation as claimed in the complaint. Hence the petition may be dismissed.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite parties. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite parties.
 

5. The POINT :- The complainant availed about 4 lakhs rupees as loan from the opposite party in 3 different schemes. But the opposite party never provided the entire benefit of write off scheme declared by the Government. The complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that the entire KCC loan is entitled to include in the write off scheme of the Government. But the opposite party included only 1 lakh rupees and interest in this scheme. PW1 and his wife are having 2.68 acres of land in Konnathady Village and they are residing in there, which was given as security for the loan. They have repaid Rs.30,000/- in the entire loan account. But the opposite party illegally affixed demand notice for Rs.4,34,505/- in their property eventhough the agricultural land is excluded from the Securitisation Act. Ext.P1 is the notice issued by the opposite party on 20.03.2009. Ext.P2 is the notice issued on 3.12.2008 and Ext.P4 is the copy of the loan account. The circular issued from the Co-operative Joint Registrar Office, Thiruvananthapuram as NO.CG(2) 12024/08 dated 5.06.2008 is marked as Ext.P5. As per cross examination of the opposite party, Ext.P5 circular produced by the complainant is from the office of the Co-operative Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram and it is not applicable for the SBT. The circular issued from the Ministry of Financial Department of Financial Services, New Delhi dated 28.05.2008 as Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, implementation circular 1/08 is produced and is marked as  Ext.R1. The complainant is only entitled to get the benefit of Rs.1 lakh and its interest as per the circular and it was already done by the complainant. The property mortgaged by the complainant is for housing loan and also for the agricultural loan. The complainant availed Rs.1,25,000/- in the scheme of KCC. The balance amount was for housing purpose. As per the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to get the benefit of the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme declared by the Government, only for Rs. 1 lakh and its interest, it is already given to the complainant. The balance amount and interest should be paid by the complainant as per the circular. The mortgaged property is not an agricultural land and the property is also given as security for the housing scheme loan. The entire amount is due now. So they can realise the amount as per the SRFAESI Act. Here the complainant never produced the application for the loan to prove that he availed an agricultural loan and the property mortgaged is an agricultural land, which is exempted as per Section 31(1) of the SRFAESI Act. But the opposite party admitted that the loan of Rs.1,25,000/- is an agricultural loan. The benefits as per the scheme issued by the Government was given to the complainant in that loan. So we think that the complainant failed to produce the evidence regarding the documents of the loan to show that the property is agricultural land and it is exempted as per the Securitisation and Reconstruction Act. So we think that there is no deficiency is seen from the part of the opposite party and the petition is dismissed.

Hence the petition is dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of January, 2010

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

 Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - K.S.Narayanan

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Possession Notice dated 20.03.2009 issued by the opposite party

Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Notice dated 3.12.2008 issued by the opposite party

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Notice datd 12.03.2009 issued by the opposite party

Ext.P4 - Photocopy of Statement of Account

Ext.P5 - Photocopy of Circular No.41/2008 issued from the Co-operative Joint Registrar Office, Thiruvananthapuram,

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Photocopy of Implementation Circular 1/2008 – Agricultural  Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme 2008