By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:
The complainant availed an agricultural loan of Rs.40,000/- from the opposite party on 04.08.2004. The complainant could not repay the loan amount in time because of the adverse climatic condition, depression etc. Hence it become overdue. The complainant is eligible for getting benefit as per debt relief scheme. Since the opposite party denied the benefit, the complainant approached the Kerala State Farmers Relief Commission, Thiruvananthapuram by filing an application No.1016/2007/WD. The debt relief Commissioner passed an order directing the opposite party to grant sum of Rs.35,250/- as debt relief and directed the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.11,750/- on or before 31.03.2008. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party with balance amount as per the direction of debt relief commission. But the amount was not accepted by opposite party. The complainant is entitled to get benefit as per the loan waving scheme of coffee board. In fact the complainant is not liable to pay any amount at present. The opposite party has not included the name of the complainant for that benefit also. It is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore it is prayed that to pass an order directing the opposite party to provide the debt relief as directed by the debt relief commission to the extent of Rs.35,250/-. Extent maximum benefit available as per the waving scheme of the coffee board. Pay sum of Rs.10,000/- for compensation and cost of this litigation.
2. Opposite party appeared and filed his version. In the version he stated that the complainant has availed loan on 21.02.2007. It will not come under the Central agricultural relief package as per the order of the agricultural debt relief commission. The commission has not directed this bank to write off the loan taken by the complainant. Whereas the commission directed the government to write off Rs.35,250/-. The commission directed bank to write off Rs.2,945/- and directed the complainant to remit Rs.11,750/- before 31.03.2008, but the complainant has not approached the bank with their money. The complainant has got a subsidy of Rs.8,126/- from the coffee board that amount entered in the account of the complainant. Now she has to return an amount of Rs.3,624/- to the bank. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and also prayed to take action for getting the amount from the government as directed by the debt relief commission.
3. Considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Relief and Cost.
4. Point No.1 :- To prove the complainant's case she has filed her proof affidavit and
Ext.A1 to A3 documents were marked. In the affidavit she stated as stated in the complaint. Ext.A1 is the order of the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission Thiruvananthapuram dated 10.10.2007. In which the complainant is the applicant and opposite party is the respondent. On perusing Ext.A1 as per Section 5 of the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission Act 2006 the commission come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to debt relief to the extent of 75%. So the commission granted debt relief of Rs.35,250/-. The commission directed the complainant to remit Rs.11,750/- on or before 31.03.2008. In the order it is made clear that this award is without prejudice to the entitlement of the applicant to get more debt relief, in case government declares anything to that effect later. Ext.A2 is the card issued by the opposite party to the complainant, in which the opposite party directed the complainant to renew the loan after paying the interest. Ext.A3 is the cash receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant for amount of Rs.3,364/-. To prove the opposite party's case opposite party was examined as OPW1, no document is marked on the side of the opposite party. In the version of the opposite party it is mentioned that the complainant has to remit an amount of Rs.3,364/- towards the balance amount. Ext.A3 shows that the above amount is remitted by the complainant. On perusing Ext.A1 the applicant is the complainant and opposite party is the respondent. The government is not a respondent in the above order and there is no direction to the government to pay an amount of Rs.35,250/-. Hence the opposite party has to take action to get the amount from the government. For not taking any action to reimburse the amount and non returning documents pledged by the complainant is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
5. Point No.2 :- Opposite party has to take action to get Rs.35,250/- for closing the loan of the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get back the documents pledged by her at the time of availing the loan from the opposite party. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party directed to take action to get Rs.35,250/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Only) as debt relief to the complainant. Opposite party also directed to release documents to the complainant which were pledged at the time of availing the agricultural loan. No order as to cost and compensation.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 31st January 2012.
Date of Filing:13.07.2011.
