KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                            VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM       

APPEAL NO.218/10

                             JUDGMENT DATED 28.2.2011

 PRESENT

 SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN       --  MEMBER

SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                        --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                --  MEMBER

1.      The Secretary Primary co-operative

Agricultural and Rural           

Development Bank Ltd. No.Q.390

Pathanamthitta.

2.      The Branch Manager,                         --  APPELLANTS

          Primary Co-operative Agricultural

          And Rural Development Bank

          Ltd.No.Q.390,                       

Pathanamthitta, Ittiyapara,

Ranni, Pathanamthitta.

   (By Adv.Nalanchira P.Krishnamoorthy)

                   Vs.

Joseph D’cruz

Mary Cottage, Vechachira – 686511          --  RESPONDENT

Pathanamthitta District.

 JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER

          This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRD,  Pathanamthitta in OP.No.199/03 dated 24.2.10.  The appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in the above said OP.    The appellant prefers under the order passé by the forum below directed the opposite party to follow Ext.A15 order with 2 ½    penal interest to principal amount only.  Already collected amount is to be returned or adjusted in the complaint’s loan account  and also directed to comply Agricultural Debt Relief Act 2001 and   allowing 6 months interest reduction and 30 instalments to defaulted loan amount of the complainant.  The rate of interest of the instalment amount be fixed based on the direction of NABARD or other prevailing relief schemes which ever is less.  The order will no way even the opposite parties in allowing any other debt relief benefit  or any other future scheme during the tenure of repayment of the defaulted amount if any.  Further the Forum below directed the opposite party to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation and a cost of Rs.1000/-.  As per this order, the above complaint was allowed by the forum below.

          2. In short, the complainant herein as availed 3 loans, they are the loan No.88/91 for Rs.14,000/-, OL 531/93 for Rs.10,000/- and OL 681/97 for Rs.25,000/-   repayment of the loans and interest was defaulted.  The complainant approached the bank on 14.3.2000 for the payment of loan.  He was informed that there was a defaulted amount of Rs.1,270/-  as on 1.10.99 and this amount includes penal interest of Rs.1,270/- on 1.7.05.  It is alleged that the bank charges interest to interest is worked out as total amount of Rs.8550/- the principal amount out of this is only Rs.3,640/-.  The complainant claimed that the penal interest was 3% of Rs.3,640 is Rs.218.4.  Where as the bank realized Rs.1,270/- by way of penal interest.  This was objected by the complainant and the bank unheeded this objection.  It is admitted by the complainant that he has defaulted repayment of the other loan overdue.  The complainant approached several times the   opposite parties enquiring the rate of interest, he has to pay for the defaulted amount and the number and amount of instalment etc.  Instead of giving an answer, opposite parties issued an attachment notice to the complainant dated 24.3.03.  Opposite parties has not made any further proceedings for getting the debt relief.  The opposite parties harassed the complainant for the last 1 ½ years.  The complainant entitled for the benefit of the loans availed by him the benefit of agricultural Debt Relief Act 2001.  Opposite parties denied this provision of the relevant registration to the complainant/agriculturist.  Hence the complaint.

          3. The opposite party 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed their version and stated that the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  According to the opposite parties what is stated in the complaint is irrelevant and untrue.   The complainant accepted loan based on the terms of opposite parties.  Opposite parties has not either realized or tried to realize any interest from the complainant illegally.   They issued demand notice only for the lawful amount with interest based on the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  The said amount is lawfully realizable from the complainant.  They also denied the allegation that they are trying to realize higher rate of penal interest.  

          4. Opposite parties contended that the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of agricultural Debt Relief Act, 2001.  He failed to comply the terms of the Act to get the benefit.  Opposite parties tried to realize the dues based on the existing law and mortgage deed executed by the complainant.  Opposite parties had also replied all the letters send by the complainant.  There is no consumer relationship between the opposite parties and the complainant.  As per the Co-operative Societies Act 1969 there is a remedy available in this act.  In the circumstance, the complainant has no legal locustandy to approach the forum below.  Therefore they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

                   5. The forum below framed 3 issues they are:-

1.                Whether the complaint is maintainable before the forum below?

2.                Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?

3.                Relief and costs?

         6. The evidence consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and he has been cross examined by the opposite parties and preferred his witness as PW1 and the documents produced by him which have been marked as Ext.A1 to A17.

            7. Evidence of the opposite parties consists of the proof affidavit filed by the authorized representative of opposite parties, who has been examined as DW1.  The  document marked as Ext.B1 to b8.  The Forum below heard in both parties in detail and discuss all the issues raised for the consideration and discuss one by one and answered accordingly.  In the result, the forum below allowed the complaint and passed the above impugned order.  The appellant filed this appeal under the above directions.

          8. On this day this appeal came before this Commission on final hearing, the counsel for the appellants is represented and the respondent/complainant appeared party in person.  The counsel for the appellant argued on the ground of the appeal memorandum that the order passed by the forum below is not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence.   They argued that the Forum below have no jurisdiction to entertain this dispute even the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969  as per Section 21.  There they are having thereon machinery to entertain this dispute and they invited the attention of this Commission that if there are 2 remedies are available in different statues the parent act is prevailing.  It is the settled position that as per the Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, the forum below is having the additional jurisdiction to entertain this dispute even though another statute have similar remedy.  This position was settled by the Hon. Supreme Court and National Commission in various decisions.  We are not in a position to accept this argument for the counsel for the appellant.  It is seeing that the Board of Directors taken a decision to apply the provisions of the Kerala Agricultural Debt Relief Act, 2001 in the case of the complainant is applicable to this loan.   Board is the controllers of the bank.  But, the officers of the appellant/bank did not ready to accept this decision taken by the Board of Directors.  It is the controlling Board of the Bank.  The officers of the appellant/bank have the right to pick up choose thereon principles.  Even though, the appellant/bank is established as per the provisions of the law.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant who approached  the opposite party/bank officers on several occasions to pay his dues.  But, the officers have taken an indifferent approach towards the complainant.  They stick on their own agreement and proceeded against the complainant for the recovery of loan and   penal interest.  They have no legal capacity to do so.  It is nothing but deficiency in service.  The complainant who appeared in person and submitted that he is a poor agriculturist who avails this loan and the legislation passed by the Government of Kerala for the benefit of the complainant also.  But, the opposite party/Bank officers denied the object and aim of the socially benefited policy of the government to protect the agriculturist.

          9. We heard in detail.  We are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below and to set aside the impugned order on the strength of the detail argument of the counsel of the appellants.  The order passed by the forum below is strictly accordance with the law and evidence and as per the spirit of the socially benefited    legislation  such as Consumer Protection Act and Kerala Agricultural Debt Relief Act, 2001.

          In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below.  No cost ordered.  The grounds alleged in the appeal memorandum and argument of the Counsels and the appellant which discussed by one by one and answered accordingly.

 M.K.ABDULLA SONA   --  MEMBER

 VALSALA SARANGADHARAN   --  MEMBER

 M.V.VISWANATHAN  --  JUDICIAL MEMBER