KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO: 685/2010
JUDGMENT DATED:07..04.. 2011.
PRESENT
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.M.K ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
The Manager,
Canara Bank, Meenangadi Branch, : APPELLANT
Meenangadi.P.O, Sulthanbathery.
(By Adv:Sri.P.Balakrishnan)
Vs.
Joy.K.V, S/o Varkey,
Kinalathu house,
Meenangady.P.O, : RESPONDENT
Sulthan Bathery.
(By Adv:Sri.A Abdulla Sait)
JUDGMENT
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in CC.64/10 on the file of CDRF, Wayanadu, Kalpetta. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/ Manager, Canara bank, Meenangady branch in not releasing the title deed of the property which was pledged with the opposite party bank for availing agricultural loan for Rs.1,72,000/-. Thus, the complainant prayed for getting the title deed of his property released and also for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental and financial loss suffered by the complainant.
2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. The opposite party justified his action in not releasing the title deed on the ground that a sum of Rs.1,33,585/- with interest is due from the complainant towards loan account. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1; Exts.A1 and A2 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. From the side of the opposite party the Manager, Canara Bank Meenangady branch was examined as OPW1. Exts.B1 to B4 documents were also marked on the side of the opposite party. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:30th September 2010 allowing the complaint in part and thereby directing the opposite party to waive the loan amount of the complainant and to absolve the complainant from the liability. The opposite party is further directed to return the title deeds which were kept as security for the loan and to pay Rs.500/- towards cost of the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party.
4. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that the Forum below had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding the relief available under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme as the complainant has to approach the appropriate authority/Ombudsman for Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme. He relied on Exts.B1 circular and B3 acknowledgement of Debt and argued for the position that a sum of Rs.1,19,487/- with interest thereon was due to the appellant/opposite party, bank as on 1-10-08. He submitted that the respondent/complainant was entitled to get the benefit of Rs.1,55,139/- as the eligible amount. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and for dismissal of the complaint in CC.64/10 on the file of CDRF, Wayanadu, Kalpetta. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He much relied on A1 certificate dated:12/7/2008 issued by the opposite party/Canara Bank Meenangady branch stating that the outstanding amount has been waived under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant availed an agricultural loan of Rs.1,72,000/- by depositing the title deed of his landed property having an extend of 5 acres. Admittedly the aforesaid agricultural loan became over due and the said loan amount due to the bank from the complainant was covered by the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. Ext.A1 is the certificate issued by the opposite party, the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Meenangady branch. It is dated:12th July 2008. It is to be noted that the A1 certificate was issued by the opposite party bank as provided under clause 9 of B1 circular No.138/08 dated:10/6/2008. Ext.B1 (A2) circular was issued as clarifications to the provisions of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Clause 9 of B1 circular prescribes the eligibility of the small and marginal farmers to get a certificate from lending institutions like the appellant/opposite party bank specifying the eligible amount for Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. Thus, A1 certificate dated:12/7/2008 issued by the appellant Canara Bank, Meenangady branch is to be treated as the certificate issued under the provisions of clause 9 of B1 circular.
6. Ext.A1 certificate was issued in the name of the complainant, Joy. K.V.. He has been treated as a small farmer coming under the purview of the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. The extent of the property in the possession of the complainant/small farmer was 5 acres. The principal loan amount is shown as Rs.1,22,000/-. It would also show that the said agricultural loan of Rs.1,72,000/- was availed by the complainant/small farmer between 31/3/1997 and 31/3/2007. The aforesaid loan was disbursed for agricultural purpose. It is specifically stated in Ext.A1 certificate that a sum of Rs.1,55,139/- was the outstanding balance under the said loan transaction as on 31st December 2007 and that the said amount was due from the complainant/small farmer as on 29th February 2008. It is further specified that a sum of Rs.1,55,139/- has been assessed as the eligible amount under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. Thus, as per A1 certificate the outstanding balance was treated as Rs.1,55,139/- and after giving the benefit under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme, no other amount was due from the complainant. So, the claim of the complainant for return of the title deeds which he had deposited with the opposite party bank as security for availing the agricultural loan can be treated as a just and reasonable claim. The refusal of the opposite party/bank to return the said title deed would amount to deficiency of service.
7. The appellant/opposite party, bank has no case that A1 certificate was issued under a mistaken notion. There is no case for the appellant/opposite party bank that the entries in A1 certificate are not correct or the said certificate is in need of any correction. It is also to be noted that the appellant/opposite party, bank had not taken any steps to rectify any defect or mistake in A1 certificate. The issuance of A1 certificate is admitted by the appellant/opposite party, bank. A perusal of A1 certificate would show that no amount is due to the bank under the aforesaid agricultural loan transaction. So, the present case of the opposite party/bank for Rs.1,33,585/- as the balance due from the complainant to the opposite party/bank as on 01/10/2009 cannot be believed or accepted.
8. Ext.B2 statement of account produced from the side of the opposite party/bank cannot be accepted in the light of the A1 certificate issued by the opposite party/bank. It is further to be noted that as per B4 statement of account, the balance amount due to the bank under the aforesaid loan transaction is shown as Rs.1,41,567/- as on 26/03/2010. Thus, there is inconsistency between Ext.B4 and A1 documents. Moreover, in the light of the A1 certificate issued by the appellant/opposite party bank B4 and B3 documents cannot be accepted. Ext.A1 is the certificate issued under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. A1 certificate has got binding force. The appellant/opposite party bank cannot ignore A1 certificate which was issued by the bank under the provisions of B1 circular which was issued for implementation of the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme.
9. Clause 4 of B1 circular stipulates the calculation of eligible amount under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. In Ext.A1 certificate the eligible amount has been calculated at Rs.1,55,139/-. The outstanding balance is also shown as Rs.1,55,139/-. If that be so, no amount was due from the complainant as balance amount under the aforesaid agricultural loan transaction. The opposite party bank cannot be justified in demanding any amount from the complainant/consumer by way of outstanding balance under the aforesaid loan transaction. In other words, demand made by the appellant/opposite party bank for balance amount due under the loan transaction after issuance of A1 certificate would amount to deficiency of service. Once the outstanding balance has been calculated as Rs.1,55,139/- and the said balance has been waived under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme, it was not just or reasonable on the part of the appellant/opposite party bank in demanding any amount by way of balance amount due under the agricultural loan transaction.
10. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a small farmer coming under the purview of the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. Admittedly he was having a total extent of 5 acres of agricultural land at the time of sanction of the agricultural loan. He being the small farmer cultivating agricultural land not more than 5 acres is to be considered as a small farmer eligible for the benefits under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. Clause 3, explanation 4-D of B1 circular would make it further clear that agricultural loan taken under Kisan Credit Card would come within the purview of the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. Clause 4.1 (a) of B1 circular would show that the eligible amount would take in applicable interest also. Clause 4.1 (a) (i) of B1 circular would make it abundantly clear that the loan disbursed up to 31st March 2007 and the over due amount as on 31st December 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008 would come under the purview of the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. Admittedly the respondent/complainant availed the agricultural loan of Rs.1,72,000/- prior to 31/3/2007. The said loan amount became over due as on 31/12/2007 and the over due amount remained unpaid until 29/2/2008. If that be so, the respondent/complainant being a small farmer was eligible for the entire loan outstanding waived under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. Thus, by issuing A1 certificate and by applying the provisions of B1 circular issued by the appellant/opposite party bank as clarification for implementation of the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme, the respondent/complainant is entitled to get the entire loan outstanding waived. As per A1 certificate the loan outstanding balance stands waived under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. Thus, in all respects, the respondent/complainant was entitled to get the title deeds returned.
11. The appellant/opposite party bank has got a case that as per B1 circular the respondent/complainant (small farmer) was only entitled to get deduction of Rs.1.lakh and the interest thereon and that the balance amount was due from the respondent/complainant. A perusal of B1 circular would make it clear that the respondent/complainant being the small farmer under the said scheme was eligible for getting deduction of the entire outstanding loan amount. The clause 5.1 of B1 circular would make it abundantly clear that in the case of a small or marginal farmer, the entire eligible amount shall be waived. The aforesaid provisions of clause 5.1 of B1 circular would negative the contention of the appellant/opposite party bank that the respondent/complainant was only eligible to get deduction of Rs.1.lakh and the interest thereon under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. The impugned order passed by the Forum below would make it clear that the entire evidence available on record has been appreciated by the Forum below and rightly allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to absolve the complainant from the liability and to return the titled deeds to the complainant with cost of Rs.500/-.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party vehemently argued for the position that the Forum below had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in CC.64/10 as the dispute involved in the said complaint ought to have been preferred before the appropriate authority/Ombudsman for Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme. It is to be noted that the issue involved in the complaint in CC.64/10 is the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank in refusing to return the title deeds which were deposited by the complainant for availing the agricultural loan. It is the definite case of the complainant that as per A1 certificate issued by the opposite party bank no amount is due to the bank and that he is entitled to get the title deeds returned by the bank. It is the case of the complainant that the failure on the part of the opposite party/bank to return the title deeds would amount to deficiency of service. There is nothing on record to show that A1 certificate is not binding on the opposite party bank. Admittedly A1 certificate was issued by the opposite party bank. As per A1 certificate no amount is due from the complainant to the bank. The entire amount was waived. The appellant/opposite party bank itself waived the entire outstanding loan amount by issuing A1 certificate. If that be so, the complaint in CC.64/10 filed by the complainant for getting his grievances redressed can be treated as maintainable. The Forum below has rightly considered deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank in refusing to return the title deeds.
13. There is no specific bar in approaching the Consumer Forum to get the grievances redressed by a small farmer coming under the purview of the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. In fact, there was no dispute regarding A1 certificate issued by the appellant/opposite party bank. So, the aforesaid case of the appellant/opposite party bank that the Forum below had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in CC.64/10 cannot be upheld. More over, the provisions of Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 empower the agencies constituted under the “Consumer Protection Act” to entertain the complaint preferred by the consumer coming within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is to be noted that the provisions of sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an additional right conferred on a consumer and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus in all respects, it can very safely be held that the Forum below had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in CC.64/10.
14. Appellant bank has got a case that the Respondent/ Complainant is not a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. It is the case of the Appellant that the benefit under the Debt Waiver Scheme, 2008 is to be treated as concession amounting to charity and that the said concession, grant or benefit, allowed without consideration cannot be treated as service u/s 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.
15. The aforesaid case of the appellant cannot be accepted for a moment. The appellant has conveniently forgotten the real fact that a small farmer like the complainant is a beneficiary under the Debt Waiver Scheme. The said benefits are granted by the Government by implementing the aforesaid scheme. An important aspect to be borne in mind is that the lending institution under the scheme like the appellant bank is compensated by making reimbursement by the Government. Thus, the appellant bank being the lending institution has been rendering services to beneficiaries under the scheme on consideration. The appellant bank is concerned, it rendered services to the respondent/complainant on consideration. It has not rendered any service to the complainant free of charge. The consideration paid or promised by the government for and on behalf of the beneficiaries under the said scheme would bring the appellant under the purview of the consumer Protection Act, 1986. The beneficiary of any such service can also be considered as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, there is Consumer-Service Provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. Hence we hold that the respondent/complainant is a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
16. The foregoing discussions and the findings thereon would make it clear that the present appeal preferred by the appellant/opposite party is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence we do so.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated:30/9/2010 passed by CDRF, Wayanadu, Kalpetta in CC.64/10 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
M.K ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER
VL.
