By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant had taken loan in 2003 Rs.1,25,000/- from the Opposite Party Bank for agricultural purpose pledging land property in the extent of 3.98 acre. The loan taken became over due and subsequently the loan amount informed to be waived off under the debt relief and the debt waiver scheme and a certificate in that respect was given to the Complainant. When the Complainant asked the return of the title deed which kept as security, the Opposite Party skip off from it telling one on other reasons and finally the complaint was informed that for the deliverance of the title deed the complaint has to remit Rs.30,000/- for the entire liable sum. The Complainant is absolutely entitled to get the favour of the debt relief and debt waiver scheme. The act of the Opposite Party not waiving of the loan amount is a clear deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party:-

1. To give back the complainant the title deed of the property which is kept as security.

2. To give the Complainant the compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with cost.

2. The Opposite Party filed version it is in short as follows:- The loan taken by the Complainant was for agricultural purpose under the head of Kissan Credit Card. The loan became overdue on 30.7.2009 and the Complainant remitted Rs.15,000/- on 09.12.2004, under relief scheme declared for the district. The Complainant has received Rs.21,772/- and that was credited in to the account. Under debt relief and debt waiver scheme the Complainant is eligible for Rs.1,26,521/- which includes Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and that was credited in to the account of the Complainant. For short term loan of plantation crops there is a ceiling of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby the Complainant is not entitled for the waiving of the entire loan amount. The Complainant is having a due of Rs.40,512/- with interest from 01.10.2009.

3. The points in consideration are:-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of Complainant and Opposite Parties. Exts. A1, A2, B1, B2 and B3 are the documents produced.

5. The allegation of the Complainant is that the loan amount issued by the Opposite Party was to be waived of under the debt waiver and debt relief scheme of Central Government. The Complainant was not given the benefit of the debt waiver scheme. According to the Opposite Party the eligible amount considered to be in clause 'C” and the certificate was issued to the Complainant of Rs.1,26,521/-. It is undisputed that the Complainant was given the loan under the head of Kissan Credit Card. The extent of the land property kept in security is 3.98 acres which means the Complainant was to be included in the category of small farmers. The explanation of the agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme 2008 is envisaged as such that the loan taken under Kissan Credit Card also to be covered under the scheme subject to the guidelines. The Opposite Party in his oral testimony deposed that the amount liable to be paid by the Complainant is as per clause 3.2 of Ext.B2, the circular issued by the Canara Bank head office with the clarification of the debt waiver and debt relief scheme. The clause reads as follows “short term production loan means a loan given in connection with the arising of crops which is to be repaid within 18 months it will include working capital loan not exceeding Rs.1,00,000/- are traditional non traditional plantation and horticultural”. The Opposite Party has not substantial evidence that the loan amount issued to the Complainant includes the working capital of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The loan amount availed by the Complainant is for agricultural purpose under Kissan Credit Card. The eligible amount according to the certificate issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant is Rs.1,26,521/-. The calculation of eligible amount is to be according to the direction of clause 4.1. There is no doubt that the Complainant belongs to small farmers in the extent of the land property. The debt waiver scheme is applicable to the loan amount of the Complainant. The over due amount which is eligible for writing off by the Opposite Party bank found incorrect in tabulation. The disbursed amount up to 31^st March 2007 and over due on 31^st December 2007 which remains unpaid until 29^th February 2008 is to be considered the eligible amount that to be waived. The Opposite Party has not calculated the liability of the Complainant correctly basing on the directions of the Reserve Bank of India. The clause 8.1 explanation regarding the interest and other charges the Opposite Party bank is not liable to impose any interest upon the amount which is considered to be eligible after 29.2.2008. The eligible amount calculated by the Opposite Party bank is not according to the guidelines and directions of the circular issued. It is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has to waive the loan amount availed by the Complainant considering as a small farmer as per the norms and directions of the Reserve Bank of India. The Opposite Party has not furnished any documents with respect to the assessment of the interest for the unpaid amount by the Complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to waive the loan amount of the Complainant and the Complainant is to be absolved from the liability. The title deed kept in security by the Complainant to avail the loan is to be given back to the Complainant. The Opposite Party is also directed to give Rs.500/- towards the cost to the Complainant. This is to be complied by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of this order by the Opposite Party.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st July 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. K.V. Thomas. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Hanish Babu. Manger, Canara bank, Meenangady.

OPW2. Jayarajan Officer, Canara Bank.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Certificate. dt:12.07.2008.

A2. Letter. dt:05.03.2007.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Statement of A/c for General Advances for the period 01.01.2000 – 14.02.2010.

B2.(marked with object) R.B.I Clarification Circular issued by Canara Bank Head Office.

B3. Statement of A/c for General Advances for the period 30.07.2003 – 17.06.2010.