BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.53/2009

Between

Complainant : P.J.Antony,

Pulickal House,

Mattuthavalam P.O, Upputhara,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The General Manager,

Idukki District Co-operative Bank Limited,

Idukki Colony P.O,

Cheruthoni,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: C.K.Babu)

2. The District Collector,

Idukki.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

 The 2nd opposite party promoted floriculture through various medias. The complainant believed the propaganda made by the 2nd opposite party that the floriculture is a profitable business to his livelihood. Moreover the 2nd opposite party agreed to do some facility to market the flowers for helping the cultivators, the 2nd opposite party nominated a nodal agency for the same. The complainant availed a loan from the 1st opposite party for Rs.3 lakhs by giving security of 3.31 acres of land in survey No.748 of Upputhara village owned by the complainant. In the beginning floriculture was profitable. However, within a few months, the nodal agency set up to assist the cultivators misappropriated crores of rupees and the vigilance booked case against the Chairman and the Secretary under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, the activities of the nodal agency was stopped. The complainant could not market the flowers, so the loan became due. For recovering the loan, the 1st opposite party filed ARC 462/05 before the Assistant Registrar/ Arbitrator of the Idukki District Co-operative Bank. During the pendency of the ARC, the Central Government has announced agriculture debt relief scheme. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party for the write off the loan. The complainant pleaded before the arbitrator to give necessary direction to the 1^st opposite party for write off the loan, but the 1st opposite party was not willing to write off the loan as the complainant took an industrial loan and the same is not coming within the preview of Agriculture debt relief scheme of 2008. The petitioner filed an application to the State Agriculture Debt Relief Commission, but no order was passed. A registered notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act was issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party. The said Act is not applicable to agricultural loan. The complainant is entitled for a benefit of write off scheme provided by the Government and so this petition is filed for getting compensation of Rs.11 lakhs against 1st opposite party for not taking steps to include the complainant's loan under agricultural debt relief scheme.

2. The Ist opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable because Section 34 and 35 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 specifically bars jurisdiction of any Civil Court or other authority. It is admitted that a cash credit loan was granted to the complainant under Industrial Scheme. Being it is industrial loan, it will not come under the purview of write off scheme declared by the Central Government. The 1st opposite party is entitled for all the dues in loan amount and hence the opposite party is entitled to take appropriate legal remedies. The opposite party has initiated proceedings against the complainant strictly in accordance with law. If the complainant had a grievance, he ought to have filed it before the appellate authority as provided under write off scheme. The opposite party came to know about the grievance of the complainant only through this petition. As a gesture of customer service, the opposite party took up the matter before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Idukki. The orders are awaited. Meanwhile the complainant has closed the account by remitting the entire dues. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
 

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 of opposite party in CC No.45/2009 is adopted in this case also. Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on the side of the opposite parties. 

5. The POINT:- Complaint is filed for getting compensation against the 1st opposite party, because the 1st opposite party did not include the complainant's loan under the purview of write off scheme declared by the Central Government. Complainant stated that the loan was availed for the purpose of agriculture. So he applied for including the loan under write off scheme. The bank denied the same and a notice was issued under Securitization Act, which is marked as Ext.P2. Ext.P1 is the copy of the loan application of the complainant. The 1st opposite party filed ARC before the Assistant Registrar and the summons from the arbitration proceedings is marked as Ext.P3. The loan availed was a cash credit loan, it was for growing and sale of Anthurium, Orchid etc. The General Manager of 1st opposite party was examined as DW1. As per DW1, the complainant's loan will not come into the purview of debt waiver scheme. Copy of the rules for granting cash credit loan upto 10 lakhs is marked as Ext.R1 and the Circular issued from NABARD about the debt waiver and write off scheme in the year 2008 is marked as Ext.R2. The complainant was purchasing and selling flowers. The type of business mentioned in the loan application is purchasing, growing of Anthurium flowers. It is not written in the application that the loan is availed for agricultural purposes. 

6. As per Ext.P1, the copy of the loan application of the complainant, the fourth column, it is mentioned the type of business and it is written that "purchasing, growing, manufacturing and dealings of Anthurium and Orchid flowers and seedlings". In the 8th column it is written that the security offered is "stock of goods and landed property owned by Joseph Antony". In the 10th column of Ext.P1 it is mentioned that plans and prospects and it is written by the complainant that "I am expecting to get a good business in this field in future and hence I am planning to expand the business by investing some more funds for stocking the goods" and in the 13th column for purchases and it is written by the complainant that "purchases are done from Ernakulam and from local reputed growers and firms" and below it is written that "sales are effected at Ernakulam and such other major towns in Kerala". The terms of sales is written as "cash sales only". So it is very clear from Ext.P1, the loan application filed by the complainant that he is doing business with the amount availed by the loan. Nowhere in the Ext.P1 application it is written that the loan is for agricultural purposes. So we think that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of DW1 that the loan availed by the complainant is a cash credit loan which is exclusively giving for business purposes and not for agricultural purposes. So we think that the complainant's loan is not an agricultural one. So it will not come into the purview of agricultural write off scheme announced by the Central Government in 2008 and so there is no deficiency is seen from the part of opposite party. 

Hence the petition dismissed. 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2009 

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 :

Nil

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - K.E.Muhammed Basheer

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Application form for Cash Credit Accommodation

Ext.P2 - True copy of Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SRFAESI Act

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Summons issued by the Assistant Registrar/

Special Arbitrator, Idukki District Co-operative Bank limited

On the side of Opposite Parties:

Ext.R1 - True copy of Rules for granting Cash credit/overdraft facility upto 10 lakhs

              issued by the Ist opposite party

Ext.R2 - Copy of NABARD Circular No.NB(Kerala) No.CPD/1566/PL-14/2008-09 dated 23.05.2008