Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/755

DEPUTY DIRECTOR COFFEE BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

K A JOSE - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NOs.526/15, 527/15, 755/15 & 756/15

JUDGMENT DATED:30.11.2016

 

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

 

APPEAL NO.526/15

K.A. Jose, S/o Antony,

Kavalakattu (H), Sasimala P.O,

Padichira, Sulthan Bathery Taluk.                                 : APPELLANT

           

(By Adv: Sri. R. Ram Mohan)

 

            Vs.

 

1. The Manager,

Wayanadu District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Pulpally Branch, Pulpally P.O,

Sulthan Bathery Taluk.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

     2.    Deputy Director, Coffee Board,

P.B.No.38, Chambaka Building, Kalpetta.

 

(R2 by Adv: Sri.V.K. Mohan Kumar)

APPEAL NO.527/15

The Manager,

Wayanadu District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Pulpally Branch, Pulpally P.O,                                        : APPELLANT

Sulthan Bathery Taluk.

 

(By Adv: Sri. R. Ram Mohan)

 

            Vs.

 

1. K.A. Roy, S/o Antony,

Kavalakattu (H), Sasimala P.O,

Padichira, Sulthan Bathery Taluk.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

    2.     Deputy Director, Coffee Board,

P.B.No.38, Chambaka Building, Kalpetta.

 

(R2 by Adv: Sri.V.K. Mohan Kumar)

 

APPEAL NO.755/15

Deputy Director, Coffee Board,

P.B.No.38, Chambaka Building, Kalpetta.                   : APPELLANT

 

(By Adv: Sri. V.K. Mohan Kumar)

 

            Vs.

 

1. K.A. Jose, S/o Antony,

Kavalakattu (H), Sasimala P.O,

Padichira, Sulthan Bathery Taluk.

(By Adv: Sri. R.T. Anoop)

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

2. The Manager,

Wayanadu District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Pulpally Branch, Pulpally P.O,                                       

Sulthan Bathery Taluk.

 

(By Adv: Sri. R. Ram Mohan)

 

 

APPEAL NO.756/15

Deputy Director, Coffee Board,

P.B.No.38, Chambaka Building, Kalpetta.                   : APPELLANT

 

(By Adv: Sri. V.K. Mohan Kumar)

 

            Vs.

 

1. K.A. Roy,

Kavalakattu (H), Sasimala P.O,

Padichira, Sulthan Bathery Taluk.

(By Adv: Sri. R.T. Anoop)

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

2. The Manager,

Wayanadu District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Pulpally Branch, Pulpally P.O,                                       

Sulthan Bathery Taluk.

 

(By Adv: Sri. R. Ram Mohan)

 

 

COMMON JUDGMENT

 

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT

All these four appeals arise out of a common order passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanadu, Kalpetta in CC.147/13 and CC.151/13 dated, March 26, 2015.  Appeal No.526/15 and Appeal 755/15 are filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively against the order in CC.147/13.  Appeal 527/15 and Appeal 756/15 are filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively against the order in CC.151/13.

2.      The case of the complainants in both the complaints as detailed in the complaint and as testified by PW1, the complainant in CC.147/13 before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainants availed loan for the purpose of coffee cultivation in 1999.  Due to severe drought, the complainants could not repay the loan and had become over due.  In 2010 the Central Government pronounced coffee Debt Relief Scheme.  As per the scheme with respect to small farmers having below 10 hectres of land and loan taken before 2002 and the due continues up to June 30, 2009,  Central Government will bear 50% of such dues up to Rs.5,00,000/-, balance 25% will be paid by the loanee.  The 1^st opposite party, Wayanadu District Co-operative Bank did not consider the applications of the complainants for getting the benefits under the scheme.  Therefore complainants filed the complaint for getting benefits under the said scheme and claiming compensation.

3.      First opposite party is Wayanadu District Co-operative Bank, Pulpally Branch represented by its Manager.  Second opposite party is the Coffee Board represented by its Deputy Director, Kalpetta.  They in their version contended thus before the Forum.  Availing of loan by the complainants is admitted.  As per the scheme introduced by the Coffee Board there are 3 categories ie pre-2002 loans, crop loans and post-2002 category loans. The complainant himself has included him in the post-2002 category and Coffee Board had granted Rs.1,00,000/- and adjusted in their account. Complainant again raised protest that the account is very low claiming that they are entitled to benefits of the category of pre-2002 loans.  The 2^nd opposite party did not sanction the benefits.  According to 2^nd opposite party complainants are not entitled to the said benefits.

4.      As opposite parties in both the complaints were the same and as similar question were raised.  Forum jointly tried both these complaints.  Complainant in CC.147/13 was examined as PW1 and he produced Exts.A1 to A8 and on the side of the opposite parties the present Manager of the Bank was examined as OPW1 and she produced Exts.B1 to B7 series.  On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that complainants are entitled to benefit of the scheme as they have to be included in pre-2002 category.  The Forum directed the opposite parties to give the complainants the benefits under the scheme considering them as pre-2002 loanees.  Forum has also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.5000/-.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

 

7.      It is admitted that complainants availed loan from the 1^st opposite party bank in 1999.  The counsel for the 1^st opposite party argued that the loan taken in 1999 was closed and plantation loan was sanctioned to the complainants in the year 2008.  But no document is produced by the opposite parties to show the said restructuring of the loan.  Ext.A2 which is the form to claim the relief the complainants are included in the pre-2002 category of loans.  Ext.A5 the list of post-2002 loan the names of the complainants are not included.  Therefore we confirm the finding of the Forum that complainants will come under the category of pre-2002 loans and they are entitled to get the full benefit under the scheme.  Thus there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.      Forum has directed to give waiver of 50% of the coffee board’s waiver and the 25% of 1^st opposite party’s waiver after deducting the benefits already given.  Complainants have also been directed to pay 25% of the total amount due.  The opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to each complainants and Rs.5000/- as cost.  We find no ground to the said finding of the Forum.

In the result all the four appeals are dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/- in each appeal.

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI  :  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.