BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A.,LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.154/2009 Order dated this the 29th day of April 2010 COMPLAINANT/S Sri P.Lakshman S/o Puttaiah, R/o Byadarahalli Village and Post, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.Chikkamari., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S Central Bank of India, Halaguru, Rep. by its Manager, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.K.D.Dwarakanath., Advocate) Date of complaint 14.12.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 23.12.2009 Date of order 29.04.2010 Total Period 4 Months 6 Days Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party Bank claiming FD amount of Rs.73,398/- with interest from 03.07.2009 and compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 2. The case of the Complainant is that the has deposited Rs.60,000/- on 03.03.2006 in Opposite party Bank and it matured on 03.07.2009. The Complainant had borrowed agricultural loan for sericulture on 23.12.2005 to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and as on 31.07.2008, the loan due was Rs.60,310/- and under the Debt Relief Scheme of the Central Government, loan of Rs.55,027/- was waived and the balance of Rs.5,544/- was deposited by the Complainant on 17.10.2008 and in this regard, the Opposite party has issued clearance letter dated 20.02.2009. When the Complainant claimed the matured amount of the FD amounting to Rs.73,398/-, without giving any reason, Opposite party issued a notice on 20.08.2009 stating that the deposit amount cannot be paid, since the sericulture loan is still due. Since, the sericultural loan has been waived under the Debt Relief Scheme and clearance certificate was issued it is the duty of the Opposite party to pay the F.D. amount to the Complainant and Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not repaying the F.D. amount. Hence, the present complaint. 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting that the F.D. deposit of Rs.60,000/- by the Complainant for a period up to 03.07.2009. But, the Complainant had obtained the F.D. certificate as a security for the agricultural loan. Admitting the borrowing of agricultural loan of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Complainant on 23.12.2005 and there was due of Rs.60,310/- on 31.07.2008 and under the Debt Relief Scheme loan of Rs.55,027/- was extended to the Complainant and the same was credited to his loan account and the Complainant deposited Rs.5,544/-, the Opposite party has contended that since the Reserve Bank of India Officials did not furnish the complete information in time about the Debt Relief Scheme, the Opposite party Bank Officials by mistake and oversight, extended debt relief of Rs.55,027/- and issued the clearance certificate. But, when the same was subjected to audit, they informed that the Complainant will not come under the Debt Relief Scheme. Therefore, the letter was sent to the Complainant informing to clear the loan, as the loan was not waived off and it is also informed that the F.D. amount cannot be returned until the loan amount is cleared as per the regulation of the bank. On these grounds, the Opposite party has sought for dismissal of the complaint. 4. During trial, the Complainant is examined and has produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.5. The Opposite party is examined and Ex.R.1 to R.6 documents are produced. 5. We have heard the both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the Debt Relief Scheme? 2. Whether the Opposite party proves that extending of Debt Relief Scheme and issue of clearance Certificate is by oversight? 3. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not paying the F.D. amount? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINT NO.1:- The undisputed facts are that the Complainant is the Consumer of the Opposite party Bank and availed loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for sericulture purpose on 23.12.2005 from the Opposite party Bank and later on 03.03.2006, he has invested Rs.60,000/- as F.D. to be matured on 03.07.2009. It is an admitted fact that as per the account extract Ex.R.6 and also Ex.C.1 loan repayment card, the Complainant was depositing the loan regularly and as on 31.07.2008, the loan due was Rs.60,310/-. 9. In the meanwhile, the Central Government announced Debt Relief Scheme to the farmers. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and as per this Ex.R.1 it is dated 23rd May 2008, it should be completed by June 30th 2008. According to this scheme, the eligible amount is in the case of investment loan, the installments of such loan that are over due (together with applicable interest on such installments) if the loan was: (1) disbursed up to March 31st 2007 and overdue as on December 31st 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29th 2008. Now, if we apply these conditions admittedly this is a investment loan for sericultural purpose and not a short time crop loan and it is established that the loan was disbursed before March 31st 2007 (the loan was disbursed to the Complainant in December 2005). The next condition is over due as on December 31st 2007, i.e., the installments of such loan that are over due together with interest on such installments. In the present case, it is undisputed that as per Ex.C.1 and R.6, the Complainant has paid the installments up to 05.02.2008. The Complainant has discharged the installments with interest and it is not proved that installments of loan with interest were over due as on December 31st 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29th 2008. The case of the Complainant does not fulfill the conditions of the eligible amount mentioned in Ex.R.1 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Therefore, we answer point No.1 in the negative. 10. POINTS NO.2 & 3:- The contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite party has extended the Debt Relief Scheme and credited Rs.55,027/- to his loan account as per Ex.R.6 and then, the Complainant deposited Rs.5,544/- and the account was clear and Opposite party has issued clearance certificate as per Ex.C.2 and therefore, the refusal of the Opposite party to pay the F.D. amount to the complainant is illegal and it amounts to deficiency in service. 11. But, as contended by the learned counsel for the Opposite party, though the Opposite party prepared the list of beneficiaries as per Ex.R.2 including the name of the Complainant and extended the benefit under the Debt Relief Scheme and credited to the account of the Complainant and the discharge certificate is issued at the request of the Complainant, but the Opposite party has again re-opened the account and the balance of loan is continued in Ex.R.6. This is based, on according to the Opposite party, Ex.R.3 the list of beneficiaries audited by the higher authorities. The explanation of the Opposite party is that due to urgency of the matter and non-availability of detailed information to extend the benefit under the Debt Relief Scheme, the Complainant loan was also included. But, when it was scrutinized at the higher level that is by Chartered Accountant, the loan concerned to the Complainant was considered and debt relief was not extended to him as per Ex.R.3 and so, the extending of benefit under the scheme and issue of no due certificate by the Opposite party Bank is by oversight and by mistake. This explanation has to be accepted in the circumstances of the case, because in view of the circular Ex.R.1 under the Debt Relief Scheme issued on May 23rd 2008, it should be completed within June 2008. So, it appears that the Opposite party has prepared the list of beneficiaries without proper application of mind of the eligible persons for want of necessary details and extended the benefit to the Complainant being the customer of the Opposite party Bank with good faith and issued the clearance certificate also. But, the Opposite party is bound by the report of the higher authorities and Ex.R.3 clearly proves that the Chartered Accountant has scrutinized the beneficiaries and found that the Complainant is not eligible for the Debt Waiver Scheme. Therefore, as per Ex.R.4 the Opposite party issued a letter dated 20.08.2009 informing that the loan account of the Complainant has been closed accidentally under the Debt Relief Scheme and the Complainant is not eligible as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and he is liable to pay balance loan of Rs.67,835/- and also informed that if the loan is not cleared the powers of set off and adjustment from the F.D amount will be exercised. The Complainant has produced the said letter Ex.C.5. So, only on the basis of this letter, the Complainant has filed this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay the F.D amount and the claiming of loan is illegal. But, the Opposite party has proved that the extending of benefit of Debt Waiver Scheme to the Complainants accounts is accidental and oversight in the urgency of the matter. But, actually the Complainant debt is not eligible under the Debt Waiver Scheme as observed above and therefore, the Complainant is liable to pay the loan due. 12. Further, the Opposite party has General Right of Lien over the F.D amount of the Complainant in respect of the loan due by the Complainant and therefore, until the clearance of the loan, the Complainant is not entitled F.D amount and therefore, we hold that the Complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service by the Opposite party and Complainant is not entitled to the F.D amount as sought for or any compensation. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 29th day of April 2010). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
