O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1 Complaining the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not applying the Debt Relief Scheme envisaged by the Central Government of India, the complainant who is an agriculturist of Yellamilli Village, Nayakampalli Post, Gandepalli Mandal filed this complaint, seeking a direction to release gold ornaments pledged by him with 1st opposite party when he raised loan.
2 The allegations in the complaint in brief are that he owns total extent of Ac.4.37 cents of land both wet and dry. He obtained crop loan of Rs. 30,000/- from the opposite party bank in the month of April, 2006 by submitting his pattadar pass book. Sometime later he borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party pledging gold ornaments for agriculture purpose.
3 While the matter stood thus the Government of India introduced Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme in the year 2008. Consequently he became eligible for the above said scheme and hence he need not repay the crop loan of Rs.30,000/- as he is a small farmer benefited under the said scheme. So far as the gold loan he repaid an amount of Rs. 11,365/- together with interest. Having received the said amount, the 1st opposite party did not release gold ornaments on the ground the crop loan borrowed by him was not repaid. Inspite of his repeated requests the opposite party did not heed the same and they refused to release the gold ornaments on the ground that he is having 7 Acres of land and thus not entitled for the Debt Relief scheme.
4 The 1st opposite party filed its written version adopted by 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and it is their specific version the complainant has 7 Acres of land which was declared in declaration given to the bank and as such he is not entitled for the Debt Relief announced by the Central Government of India. They admit the two loans borrowed by the complainant and his repaying the gold loan and they are refusing to release the gold ornaments pledged at the time of raising gold loan on the ground that the complainant is not a small farmer and that they have right of general lien over the ornaments for clearance of the crop loan. Thus according to them as the complainant is not a small farmer owning 7 Acres of land he is not entitled for the Debt Relief Scheme announced by the Government of India. Thus contending they sought dismissal of the complaint.
5 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, whether the complainant is not entitled for direction for release of gold ornaments pledged by him with the 1st opposite party?
3. To what relief?
6 Point No.1: There is no dispute with regard to two crop loans obtained by the complainant. It is also not in dispute about complainant repaying the loan raised by pledging gold ornaments. Now it is to be seen whether the complainant satisfies requirements of small farmer and thus entitled for Debt Relief Scheme announced by the Government of India.
7 To substantiate his contention the complainant filed his proof affidavit and got marked 8 documents which are the implementation of circular issued by the Ministry of Finance and G.O. Constitution of Inter-Sectoral Committee at State Level and Multi –Sectoral Groups at District lever for overseeing the activities and G.O. issued crop loans with regard to the waiver of the loan and copy of the amendment orders GO No.161 Agriculture and Cooperation [F.P.II] Department, copy of letter addressed by the Prime Minister to the Ryots, Xerox copy of pattadar pass book standing in the name of complainant, copy of letter addressed by the Joint Director of Agriculture to The Lead Bank District Manager, Andhra Bank Zonal Office, Kakinada, copy of letter addressed by the Joint Director to the Branch Manager of the 1st opposite party, receipt showing the payment of Rs. 11,365/- towards gold loan by the complainant, copy of No.3 adangal belonging to the complainant and Sisthu receipt.
8 As against this evidence though the 1st opposite party chose to file the proof affidavit of his Branch manager it has not exhibited any documents. In this regard it is to be noted that the bankers will have right of general lien over the securities of the customers. But here in this case it should be seen whether the right of lien exercised by the opposite party is well within purview of law. They denied release of gold ornaments on the ground the complainant owns 7 Acres of land and does not follow within the definition of small farmer. Though such a contention is raised they have not filed any documents evidencing the complainant owning 7 acres of land as claimed by them. On the other hand the copy of pattadar pass book, No.3 adangal exhibited by the complainant undoubtedly would indicate the complainant owns only Acres 4.37 cents. On the face of this documentary evidence the mere oral assertion by opposite parties is of no use. Thus the complainant is eligible for the Debt Relief announced by the Central Government of India and thus by implication of law, the amount borrowed by the complainant towards crop loan stands discharged and the 1st opposite party has no right to retain the gold pledged by the complainant exercising the right of lien. Thus there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not returning gold jewellery pledged by the complainant. Hence this point is answered infavour of the complainant against the opposite parties.
9 Point No.2: In view of the fining rendered under point No.1, the 1st opposite party is directed to release the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant while raising Agriculture loan and further the opposite parties are directed to pay sum of Rs. 2000/- [rupees two thousand only] towards mental agony and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- [ rupees one thousand only] towards expenses incurred by the complainant. Thus this point is also answered accordingly.
10. Point No.3: In the result, the 1st opposite party is directed to release the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant while raising Agriculture loan and further the opposite parties are directed to pay sum of Rs. 2000/- [rupees two thousand only] towards mental agony and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- [ rupees one thousand only] towards expenses incurred by the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to pay the above said amounts within one month from the date of this order, otherwise the said amounts shall carry interest @9% from the date of this order till realization.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 28th day of January, 2015
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant :
Sri Majjuri Venkata Rama Rao [ complainant]
For opposite parties :
Sri Vemparala Venkata Surya Rao, Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank, Peddapuram
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 28.05.2008 Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance and G.O. Constitution of Inter-Sectoral Committee at State Level and Multi –Sectoral Groups at District lever for overseeing the activities and G.O. issued crop loans with regard to the waiver of the loan and copy of the amendment orders GO No.161 Agriculture and Cooperation [F.P.II] Department [Photostat copy]
Ex.A2 10.06.2008 Copy of letter addressed by the Prime Minister to the Rythu Mitrama [Photostat copy]
Ex.A3 Copy of pattadar pass book standing in the name of complainant [Photostat copy]
Ex.A4 15.02.2010 Copy of letter addressed by the Joint Director of Agriculture to the Lead Bank District Manager, Andhra Bank Zonal Office,
Kakinada [Photostat copy]
Ex.A5 Copy of letter addressed by the Joint Director to the Branch Manager of the 1st opposite party [Photostat copy]
Ex.A6 02.03.2009 Receipt showing the payment of Rs. 11,365/- towards gold loan by the complainant [original]
Ex.A7 Copy of No.3 adangal belonging to the complainant
Ex.A8 Sisthu receipt [original]
For opposite parties: NIL
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
