CC Filed on 10.09.2009
Disposed on 30.12.2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 30th day of December 2010
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 90/2009
Between:
Sri. Giriyappa, S/o. Jalarappa, Aged about 70 years, Bodaganahalli, Thipenahalli Post, Chikkaballapur Taluk & District – 562 101. V/S 1. The General Manager, Vijaya Bank, Head Office, M.G. Road, Bangalore. 2. The Regional Manager, Vijaya Bank, Prime Rose Lane, M.G. Road, Bangalore. 3. The Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Bajjar Road, Chikkaballapur Taluk. | ….Complainant |
By Advocate Sri. S.N. Mallikarjuna Swamy & others) 4. The Government of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Financial Service, Ministry of Finance, Chairperson, New Delhi, India. | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to waive of the agricultural loan outstanding in loan account VKC No. 250005 granted by OP.3 with costs.
2. The material facts of complainant’s case as may be gathered from the pleadings and documents may be stated as follows:
That the complainant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- agricultural loan from OP.3 on 17.02.2005. The said loan account was maintained in VKC No. 250005 by OP.3. The complainant hypothecated the crops to be grown on his land.
That the complainant is a “Small Farmer” as defined in Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 (for short Scheme). The complainant is the owner and he is cultivating 0 acres 22¾ guntas in Sy. No. 71, 0 acres 13½ guntas in Sy. No. 75/7, 0 acre 7½ guntas in Sy. No. 151 and 0 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 111 of Thippenahalli Village, Chickaballapur Taluk and 0 acres 23 guntas in Sy. No. 88/2 of Dinnehosahalli Village of Chickaballapur Taluk, in all measuring 2 acres 6¾ guntas. He does not own or possess any other land other than the above said lands. As per the Scheme he is eligible for waiver of agricultural loan outstanding in VKC No. 250005.
It is alleged that OP.3 has not waived the said agricultural loan of complainant. OP.3 has wrongly shown in its loan records that the complainant was owning and possessing totally 5 acres 12 guntas at the time of loan. It is alleged that the total extent held by complainant was only 2 acres 6¾ guntas, but not 5 acres 12 guntas as shown by OP.3 in the loan papers. It is alleged that inspite of bringing the mistake to the notice of OP No.1 to 3, the mistake was not rectified and the benefit under the Scheme was not extended to complainant. Therefore he filed the present complaint.
3. OP No.1 to 3 which are head office, regional and local branch office appeared through Counsel and contested the proceedings. It is admitted that the complainant was granted crop loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for growing agricultural crop in VKC No. 250005 along with his son Nagaraj. The other allegations are denied. It is contended by OP No.1 to 3 that the complainant and his son while borrowing the loan have furnished the details of all the lands owned and possessed by them and in the application for Vijaya Kissan Card dated 16.02.2005 the complainant and his son have given particulars of lands held by them and declared that they are the absolute owners in possession of those lands and that they are cultivating Sy. No. 75/7, Sy. No. 151 and Sy. No. 111 of ThippenahalliVillage, Chickaballapur Taluk and Sy. No. 88/2, Sy. No. 71 of Dinnehosahalli Village of Chickaballapur Taluk, in all measuring 5 acres 12 guntas. The complainant and his son executed necessary loan papers and agreed to create charge by way of hypothecation on the crops to be grown on the above said lands. It is contended that the complainant and his son borrowed the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay it with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
Further they contended that as per the declaration and admission of complainant they possessed 5 acres 12 guntas and they are not eligible for any benefit as “Small Farmer” under the Scheme.
4. During the pendency of the proceedings it was found that Central Government is necessary party. Hence the complainant added OP.4 by way of amendment. In response to the notice issued to OP.4 Sri. P.N. Krishna Reddy, Dist. Government Pleader appeared for OP.4. In spite of granting sufficient opportunity OP.4 has not filed any version.
5. The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and he has produced the documents. On behalf of OP No.1 to 3 the Assistant Manager of OP.3 has filed affidavit and has also filed by the relevant documents.
6. We heard the Learned Counsel for OPs and the complainant. The Learned Counsel for OPs submitted that the prior admission and declaration submitted by complainant is binding on him which clearly shows that the complainant was owing and cultivating 5 acres 12 guntas of land and therefore he was not eligible for entire debt waiver, but he was only falling under the definition of “Other Farmer” as defined in the said scheme. The complainant submitted that he had not made such admission or declaration at the time of obtaining the loan and it was wrongly mentioned by the officers of OP.3 without his knowledge and consent and he further submitted that in reality he owns and cultivates only 2 acres 6¾ guntas and therefore he is a “Small Farmer” eligible for entire debit waiver.
7. The Learned Counsel for OPs further submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of Para. 10.2 of the Scheme.
8. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the complaint is barred in view of Para.10.2
of the Scheme?
Point No.2: Whether the complainant is a “Small Farmer” as
defined in Para. 3.06 of the Scheme?
Point No.3: To which reliefs the complainant is entitled to?
Point No.4: To what order?
9. After considering the records and submissions of the parties our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: Para. 10 of the Scheme is as follows:
10.1 Every lending institution shall be responsible for the correctness and integrity of the lists of farmers eligible under this Scheme and the particulars of the debt waiver or debt relief in respect of each farmer. Every document maintained, every list prepared and every certificate issued by a lending institution for the purposes of this Scheme shall bear the signature and designation of an authorised officer of the lending institution.
10.2 Every lending institution shall appoint one or more Grievance Redressal Officers for each State (having regard to the number of branches in that State). The name and address of the Grievance Redressal Officer concerned shall be displayed in each branch of the lending institution. The Grievance Redressal Officer shall have the authority to receive representations from aggrieved farmers and pass appropriate orders thereon. The order of the Grievance Redressal Officer shall be final.
10.3 Any Farmer who is aggrieved on the ground that his name has not been included in either of the two lists referred to in paragraph 7.1 or on the ground that his name has been included in the wrong list or on the ground that the relief granted to him has been calculated wrongly, may make a representation through the branch from which he received the loan or directly to the Grievance Redressal Officer of the lending institution concerned and every such representation shall be disposed of within 30 days of receipt thereof.
The Learned Counsel for the OPs submitted that the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer shall become final, therefore any farmer cannot approach the Forum constituted under the C.P. Act 1986 or the Civil Court challenging the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer. They particularly relied upon para. 10.2 of the said Scheme.
We think the contention of the Learned Counsel for OPs cannot be accepted. The lending institutions have a duty under the Scheme to extend the benefit provided under this Scheme to various eligible persons. What para.10.2 provides is an opportunity to the aggrieved farmer to make his representation before the Grievance Redressal Officer. It may be true that the farmer who is aggrieved cannot prefer any representation before any other higher officer of the lending institutions, after obtaining a decision from Grievance Redressal Officer. If the authorised officer of the lending institutions or the Grievance Redressal Officer commits mistake in arriving a particular decision, the aggrieved farmer is entitled to seek legal remedy. When the Central Government extended certain benefits to farmers they have a legal right to get that benefit if they are entitled to it. That legal right can be agitated before Civil Court or before Consumer Forum unless the jurisdiction of it is expressly or impliedly barred. The making of representation before the Grievance Redressal Officer or any decision by such officer does not impliedly or expressly barred the jurisdiction of Civil Court or this Forum. A complaint can be filed before Consumer Forum by aggrieved farmer if he alleges deficiency in service on the part of service provider. The lending institutions are providing banking service and it is not a free service and they charge for their service in one or other way. Under the Scheme a duty is casts on the financial institution to extend the benefits to eligible persons. The benefits extended to the farmers under this Scheme by the lending institutions, is reimbursed by the Central Government. Therefore any person eligible for debt waiver or debt relief can establish that he was not considered on improper reasons. Therefore we hold that this Forum can entertain the complaint and it has jurisdiction to decide it. Hence Point No.1 is held in negative.
Point No.2: Under the Scheme 2008 in para. 3.06 “Small Farmer” is defined as follows:
3.6 ‘Small Farmer’ means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and up to 2 hectares (5 acres).
The explanation under para.3, relevant for our purpose is as follows:
Explanation:
1. The classification of eligible farmers as per the above landholding criteria under the Scheme would be based on the total extent of land owned by the farmer either singly or as joint holder (in the case of an owner-farmer) or the total extent of land cultivated by the farmer (as tenant or share cropper), at the time of sanction of the loan, irrespective of any subsequent changes in ownership or possession.
Para.4 of the Scheme explains the eligible amount for debt waiver or debt relief and Para.5 & 6 explain who are entitled to debt waiver and debt relief. Para.7.1 prescribes the procedure for implementation of the Scheme. It reads as follows:
7.1 Every branch of a scheduled commercial bank, regional rural bank, co-operative credit institution, urban co-operative bank and local area bank covered under this Scheme shall prepare two lists, one consisting of ‘small and marginal farmers’ who are eligible for debt waiver and the second consisting of ‘other farmers’ who are eligible for debt relief under this Scheme. The lists shall include particulars of the landholding, the eligible amount and the amount of debt waiver or debt relief proposed to be granted in each case. The lists shall be displayed on the notice board of the branch of the bank/society on or before June 30, 2008.
Para.7.8 states that R.B.I shall be the Nodal Agency for the implementation of the Scheme in respect of scheduled commercial banks, urban co-operative banks and local area banks and that NABARD shall be the Nodal Agency in respect of regional rural banks and co-operative credit institutions. Para.9 of the Scheme provides for issue of certificate of debt waiver or debt relief to the eligible persons. Para. 10.1 of the Scheme prescribes that every lending institution shall be responsible for the correctness and integrity for the lists of farmers eligible under the Scheme, etc., Para.10.2 prescribes that the Grievance Redressal Officer shall receive the representation from aggrieved farmer and shall pass appropriate order on it.
In the present case, the complainant applied for Vijaya Kissan Card on 16.02.2005. The particulars of his immovable properties are mentioned in the relevant column in his application, which shows that the total land holding of complainant comes to 5 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 151, 71, 75/7, 88/2 & 111/2 of ThippenahalliVillage and DinnehosahalliVillage. As complainant was found to be holding more than 5 acres of land he was not treated as ‘small farmer’.
The complainant in his complaint has stated that the total extent of land held by him is 2 acres 16 guntas and in his affidavit he gave the particulars of land held by him in different Sy. Nos., the total of it comes to 2 acre 06¾ guntas. The particulars mentioned in the affidavit are as follows:
Sy. No. | Total Extent Acres-Guntas | Total extent of land owned by complainant | Remarks |
71 | 02.11.00 | 00.22.12 | By sale deed 7.7.2003 |
75/7 | 00.27.00 | 00.13.08 | By partition deed (20.09.1971) |
88/2 | 00.23.00 | 00.23.00 | By Sale deed 23.12.1924 |
151 | 00.23.00 | 00.07.08 | By Partition deed 20.09.1971 |
111/2 | 03.14.00 | 00.20.00 | By Partition deed 14.11.2003 |
| Total : 07.18.00 | 02.06.12 | |
It appears while totaling the extent of land held by complainant he committed an arithmetical error and has stated that the total extent comes to 2 acres 16 guntas. In the affidavit he gave the particulars of extent held by him in different Sy. Nos. and correctly added them and has shown that the total extent comes to 2 acres 06¾ guntas. The complainant as well as OP.3 have filed R.T.Cs relating to these Sy. Nos. These R.T.Cs also disclose that the total extent held by complainant comes to 2 acres 6¾ guntas. It is not known for which reason in the Vijaya Kissan Card application the total extent held by complainant is shown as 5 acres 12 guntas instead of 2 acres 6¾ guntas. However in the written argument filed on behalf of OP No.1 to 3 it is contended that the complainant had offered the lands of his two brothers Narasimahiah and Chikkanarasimahaiah and at that time all the three brothers constituted a joint family and they were cultivating the lands jointly. But this defence is not averred in the version or in the affidavit filed on behalf of OP.3.
The Scheme does not say that the declaration of land made by a debtor in his application requesting for financial assistance binds on him. On the other hand the Scheme states that the land holding of a debtor is to be investigated before preparing the list of eligible farmers for the relief. Then it becomes the duty of financial institution or Grievance Redressal Officer to find out the truth or otherwise of the version stated by the debtor to find out his actual extent of land held by him. In the present case, from the records produced by parties we hold that the complainant is holding and cultivating only 02 acres 6¾ guntas. The contention raised in the arguments by OP.3 that the complainant and his two brothers were living jointly at the time of loan and the complainant had included the lands of his brothers in the loan application is not supported by any pleading or evidence. The documents produced by OP.3 and complainant show that the partition between complainant and his brothers had taken place much earlier to 16.02.2005 the date on which the complainant filed application for loan. Therefore it appears such contention of OP.3 has no merit. Therefore we hold that the complainant is a ‘small farmer’ as defined under the Scheme. So we hold Point No.2 in Affirmative.
Point No.3 & 4: As complainant is found to be a ‘small farmer’ as defined under the Scheme, he is entitled to waiver of the entire ‘eligible amount’.
The Learned Counsel for OP.3 contended that for one or other reason the complainant must have mislead the officials of OP.3 while making the loan application and executing the loan papers stating that his total holding was 5 acres 12 guntas and he had hypothecated the entire crop to be grown on this extent of 5 acres 12 guntas. He also pointed out that the scale of finance per acre as prescribed was Rs.24,000/- and if really the complainant had disclosed his true holdings he would have been entitled to loan of Rs.52,000/-. But the complainant making a false representation that he was holding more than 5 acres of land he obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore the Learned Counsel submitted that in any event the complainant cannot be granted relief exceeding his loan limit. This contention appears to be acceptable. Therefore the amount eligible for debt waiver is Rs.52,000/- together with applicable interest on it. The complainant has to pay the remaining Rs.48,000/- together with applicable interest to OP.3. Hence Point No.3 and 4 are held accordingly. For the above reasons we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is partly allowed. OP No.1 to 3 shall extend the benefit of debt waiver to the complainant as a ‘small farmer’ in respect of the entire ‘eligible amount’ of Rs.52,000/- (rupees fifty-two thousand only) together with applicable interest under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008.
OP.4 shall reimburse OP No.1 to 3 of the debt amount waived in respect of complainant on receiving the required particulars, as provided in the said Scheme.
OP No.1 to 3 are entitled to recover Rs.48,000/- (rupees forty-eight thousand only) together with applicable interest from complainant.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 30th day of December 2010.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
