KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION 6/2010 ORDER DATED 24.3.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. Catholic Syria Bank Ltd Kattanam, Alappuzha, Reptd by its Manager. 2. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., -- REV.PETITIONERS Head Office, Thrissur, Reptd. byits General Manager. (By Adv.C.A.Joy) Vs. 1. John James, S/0 John Kalluvila, Bharanikkavu South, Kattanam, Kayamkulam, Alappuzha. 2. Elsamma John, W/0 John James, Kalluvila (H) Bharanikkavu South, Kattanam, Kayamkulam, Alappuzha. 3. Shaji George, -- RESPONDENTS S/0 T.V.George Varikklithara, Puthen Benglor, Bharanikkavu South,
Kattanam, Kayamkulam, Alappuzha. (By Adv.N.Nagendra Mani) ORDER JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the opposite party/bank in CC.128/09. The matter relates to the complaint filed by the respondents with respect to the action of the revision petitioner in not granting reliefs to the complainants as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 to loans availed by the complainants allegedly for agricultural purposes. 2. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that the forum has no jurisdiction as the reliefs provided under the scheme is not a service which would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The counsel has also relied on the decision of this Commission in Syndicate Bank Vs. Borrowers and Others 1994 (3) CPR 161. 3. Of course, the CDRF has dismissed the issue of non maintainability raised by the revision petitioners with a one line order. The above method of disposal of the Forum has to be deprecated. The Forum ought to have disposed of the matter by a reasoned order. 4. All the same, we find that the contention of the revision petitioner in this regard does not appear to be correct. We are also unable to agree with the reasoning of the order of this Commission in Syndicate Bank & Ors case. 5. We find that the revision petitioner have denied the relief to the complainant as per Annexure 5 order wherein it is mentioned that there is no agricultural activity being taken up and that the loan availed have not been utilized for agricultural activity. The above order is on a question of fact and the genuineness of the finding is disputed by the complainants. The particular scheme is implemented by the bank. Hence, revision petitioner cannot content with the above activity is not a service provided on the part of the bank. We find that the CDRF, Alappuzha is entitled to adjudicate the matter in view of Section 3 of the C.P. Act. Hence, we find that there is no merit in the contention of the revision petitioners. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. 6. It is submitted that the evidence of the complainant has been closed. The revision petitioners/opposite parties have sought for an opportunity to adduce evidence. The revision petitioner/opposite parties may apply before the Forum for re-opening the evidence and the same may be considered by the Forum below. The office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU-- PRESIDENT M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER | 
