JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

2. The Revision Petitions arise from the common impugned Order and involve two Complaints which are identical in all material particulars, therefore these Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, RP/2516/2017 is treated as the lead case, and the facts enumerated hereinafter are extracted from this Complaint.

3. The factual circumstances leading up to the present Petition are that the Complainant/Respondent No. 1, a coffee cultivator, had taken an agricultural loan in 1999 from the Respondent No. 2 (in RP/2516-2517/2017)/Petitioner (in RP/2612/2017)/Bank for coffee cultivation. Due to severe drought and a decline in the price of agricultural produce, the Complainant was unable to repay the loan, leading to its becoming overdue. Despite the loan being rescheduled, the Complainant was still unable to settle it, resulting in further overdue payments. In 2010, the Government of India, through the Petitioner/Coffee Board, introduced the Coffee Debt Relief Package (CDRP) to support small coffee planters like the Complainants, who had long overdue loans. Under this package, small planters with less than 10 hectares of coffee holdings who availed loans before 2002, and had outstanding dues as of 30.06.2009, were eligible for relief. The package stipulated that 50% of the outstanding loan, up to a maximum of Rs. 5 lakhs, would be borne by the Government of India, 25% would be borne by the respective banks, and the remaining 25% would be rescheduled for repayment.

4. The Complainant applied to the Bank for the benefits under this package and agreed to repay the rescheduled 25% portion of the loan. However, instead of passing on the full benefits of the CDRP, the Bank demanded a higher amount than what was owed according to the relief package. As per the Bank’s notice, the outstanding loan amount was Rs. 10,82,138/- as of 30.06.2009. Despite being eligible for the full relief under the package, the Bank only extended the Government’s 50% share and failed to apply the 25% benefit from the Bank, thus demanding more money than required under the CDRP.

5. This failure by the Bank to provide the complete relief under the CDRP caused significant financial burden and mental anguish to the Complainant.  It is his case that the Bank’s lack of proper service and failure to honour the CDRP terms has resulted in undue hardship, and the Bank should be held liable to compensate the Complainant for the losses suffered due to its actions. Aggrieved with the deficiency of service on the part of the Bank and Coffee Board, the Complainant filed his Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Kalpetta.

6. The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 26.03.2015 partly allowed the Complaint and gave the following directions –

 

7. The Petitioner along with other Respondents then filed their respective Appeals before the Ld. State Commission, which were dismissed and the Order of the District Forum was affirmed. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order dated 09.10.2018 are set out as below -

“7. It is admitted that complainants availed loan from the opposite party bank in 1999. The counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that the loan taken in 1999 was closed and plantation loan was sanctioned to the complainants in the year 2003. 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 1st 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 interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

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

 

8. The Respondent No. 2 (in RP/2516-2517/2017)/Petitioner (in RP/2612/2017)/Bank in its Revision Petition has stated that the State Commission erred by failing to recognize that the Respondent No. 1 does not qualify as a “consumer” under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Coffee Debt Relief Package 2010 (CDRP, 2010) is a relief scheme for small coffee growers, not a service provided for consideration. The Respondent No. 1 did not enter into a contractual agreement or pay for a service from the Government or the Coffee Board. Thus, any disputes over eligibility under the CDRP should be resolved by the Monitoring Committee, not the Consumer Fora, which lacks jurisdiction in this matter.

The Complaint lacks a valid claim of service deficiency against the Bank. The Complainant concealed that he had already received benefits as a post-2002 loan beneficiary, adjusted against his liability. The Bank’s role was to disburse funds as directed by the Coffee Board, without determining the loan categories. Any issue with the classification of the loan should have been addressed through the Monitoring Committee, as outlined in the scheme, or through a Civil Court, not a Consumer Forum.

9. The Respondent No. 2/Bank/Petitioner (in RP/2612/2017) further stated in its Petition that the State Commission wrongly found a deficiency in service by assuming that the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to pre-2002 loan benefits. The Coffee Board, not the Bank, is responsible for categorizing loans under the scheme. The Bank merely follows the Board’s directives. Thus, the State Commission’s decision misinterpreted the scope of the Consumer Protection Act and ought to be set aside.

10. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner/Coffee Board has argued that that the impugned Order should be set aside, as it is fundamentally flawed in its approach, particularly concerning jurisdiction. The Consumer Fora, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, making the entire basis for adjudication incorrect. According to Sections 2(1)(c) and 2(1)(d) of the Act, a “complaint” must involve an allegation of service deficiency by a “consumer” who has hired or availed services for a consideration. In this case, the services purportedly offered under the Coffee Debt Relief Package (CDRP) do not fall within this definition, as the Respondent No. 1 did not pay any consideration to the Coffee Board or the Government of India for availing the benefits of the relief scheme. The package was intended as a government initiative aimed at providing relief to struggling coffee farmers, and not as a service for which any direct payment was made. The relief was a fiscal policy measure, not a commercial service offered to potential consumers. This distinction is crucial, as the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is predicated upon the existence of a service relationship, which is absent in this case.

 

11. Additionally it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner/Coffee Board, that the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Ministry of Commerce v. Vinod and Company, (2019) 19 SCC 427” had held that government incentives, such as those provided under export and import policies, do not constitute a “service” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The provision of incentives, as an incident of policy, does not transform the government into a service provider or the beneficiaries into consumers. 

12. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner/Coffee Board further argued that the findings on merits also demonstrate a significant oversight by the State Commission. The loans initially taken by Roy and Jose (Respondents/Coffee Farmers) in 1999 and 2001 were closed, and new loans were issued to them in 2003. This distinction is crucial as it places the loans in the post-2002 category for the purposes of the CDRP, 2010. The CDRP’s relief structure clearly differentiates between loans taken before and after 2002, with the latter being eligible for lesser benefits. The records, including the sanctioned loans from 2003 and the associated documentation, reveal that these loans were intended for a new tenure, and thus, the benefits under the pre-2002 category should not have been extended. The State Commission, however, accepted the arguments presented by the Farmers, disregarding the clear evidence that the loans were restructured in 2003, which places them outside the scope of the more generous relief meant for pre-2002 loans.

13. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner/Coffee Board additionally argued that the State Commission overlooked critical findings from the District Forum, which had already determined that no evidence was produced to show that the original loans from 1999 and 2001 were simply restructured rather than being closed and reissued. The available documents, such as the fresh loan applications and the separate sanctioning dates, support the conclusion that these were, in fact, new loans. By failing to consider these aspects, the State Commission erroneously classified the loans under the pre-2002 category, thereby granting Roy and Jose benefits they were not entitled to under the CDRP, 2010.

14. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Complainant argued that the Revision Petitions should not be entertained, particularly given that the District Forum and State Commission have both provided well-reasoned and concurrent decisions in favour of Respondent No. 1. These decisions were based on a proper evaluation of the evidence, and no errors have been identified that would warrant interference by this Commission. The arguments now being raised by the Petitioner were previously considered by the lower Fora, which found no merit in them.

 

15. It was also argued on his behalf that, in the present case, Respondent No. 1/Complainant had availed a loan from the Bank/Respondent No. 2 in 1999, which remained unsettled. The relationship between the Respondent No. 1 and the Bank is one of consumer and service provider, as the Bank provided financial services in exchange for consideration such as fees and interest. Additionally, under the Coffee Debt Relief Package (CDRP), the Bank’s role involves disbursements covered by the Petitioner/Coffee Board, making both the Bank and the Coffee Board accountable under the Consumer Protection Act. The relief offered by the Coffee Board is a statutory service and not a sovereign function, thus falling within the scope of the Act. The bank and the Coffee Board cannot claim immunity from the Consumer Protection Act merely because they are carrying out statutory functions. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in “Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority vs. Vidya Chetal, (2019) 9 SCC 83” that statutory obligations, if they include services rendered for a consideration, are not excluded from the purview of consumer protection law.

16. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 further argued that the Coffee Board and the Bank have a responsibility to implement the CDRP fairly and cannot deny a small coffee grower the benefits of the relief package. The CDRP was created to support farmers, as acknowledged by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in “Malle Gowda vs. Coffee Board, WP/9984-9990/2011”. The Court emphasized that the package should be interpreted in favour of the farmers, critiquing the narrow and exclusionary interpretation that deprived deserving farmers of their benefits.

17. Further, according to the Respondent/Complainant, the assertion by the Petitioner/Coffee Board and the Bank that the original loan was closed and replaced by a new loan in 2003 is not supported by evidence. As noted by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission, the documentation provided by the Bank does not prove that the 1999 loan was closed or that a new loan was initiated. Moreover, the Bank had itself categorized the Respondent No. 1’s loan under the pre-2002 category, as supported by their own documents and verified in cross-examinations of Bank officials.

18. In addition, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Complainant argued that the CDRP being a welfare scheme under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry does not exempt the Coffee Board and the Bank from being held accountable to consumers. Even if coffee growers do not directly pay the Coffee Board, they are beneficiaries of services facilitated through government funds. As per the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Regional Provident Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, (2000) 1 SCC 98”, it was held that the definition of a consumer extends to beneficiaries of services. The actions of the Coffee Board in administering the CDRP are not sovereign in nature but align with the statutory services recognized under the Consumer Protection Act; That it is well established that payment of even nominal fees does not negate a consumer's rights under the Act, as was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer and Ors. vs. Kesar Lal, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 327”. The Act is concerned with whether a service is rendered for consideration, not whether the consideration fully covers the service's cost. As long as the service is not rendered gratuitously, any deficiency in service can be addressed under the Consumer Protection Act.

19. This Commission has heard the Ld. Counsel for Petitioners and Respondents, and perused the material available on record.

20. At the outset, we may note that both the Ld. Fora below had not given any credence to the defence raised by the Petitioner/Coffee Board, that the Complainants had taken fresh loans in the years 2002/2003 from the Opposite Party/Wayanad District Co-operative Bank Ltd., as they held that no documents to show that it was not a case of restructuring of the original loan taken by them in the year 1999 were filed by the Opposite Parties. 

21. This would be clear from the following observations of the Ld. District Forum in Para 5 of its Order passed in the Complaint Case:

5. Point No. 1:-  “…………On perusal of documents and records it is found that the Opposite Parties admitted that the Complainants availed loan from 1st Opposite Party in the year 1999.  The case of 1st Opposite Party is that the loan taken in the year 1999 is closed and plantation loan is sanctioned to the Complainants in the year 2008.  Opposite Parties did not produce any document to show that the loan taken in the year 1999 is re-structured and re-scheduled.  Ext.B1 series is only an application to re-schedule the loan. Ext.B1 marked with objection Opposite Parties did not produce original of Ext.B1 series and not proved the documents……..”.

 

22. It therefore transpires that the Ld. District Forum did not believe the documents marked Ext.B1 series which it observed was only an application to re-schedule the 1999 loan, and in any case it was not proved as the original documents of Ext.B1 series were not produced to prove the copies which were marked as the said Exhibit series.  The Ld. State Commission in its impugned Order also taking note of the aforesaid observations of the District Forum dismissed the Appeals filed by the present Petitioner, as well as both the Respondents/ Complainants.

23. In our view, since proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are to be conducted in a summary fashion, so the Ld. District Forum’s insistence for production of the original documents, once the copies of the same having been made available were already marked Exhibits was not called for.  Yet in our Order passed on 26.5.2023, we deemed it appropriate to see such originals as there was a slight discrepancy of the dates mentioned in the document relied upon by the Petitioners which was typed as “23.3.2013” when it ought to have been “22.3.2013”.

24. Such original documents were produced for our perusal on behalf of the Wayanad District Co-operative Bank on 16.10.2024 after copies of the same had earlier been filed, as noted in the Order dated 28.3.2024.  However, such original documents pertain to only the disputed loan of the Complainant-K.A. Roy, who is the Respondent No. 1 in RP No. 2516 of 2017 and RP No. 2612 of 2017. We have perused such original documents from which it transpired that the said Complainant had submitted an application for loan on 10.3.2003, the copy of which was Ext.B2 before the Ld. District Forum.  Such loan applied for on 10.3.2003 was sanctioned by the Bank vide its letter dated 22.3.2003, the copy of which was similarly Ext.B1 before the District Forum. After having perused these original documents, we find no justification to hold that it was not a case of applying for a fresh loan on the part of the Respondent K.A. Roy.  On the contrary, the aforesaid documents, clearly go to show that he had applied for a fresh loan on 10.3.2003, vide Ext.B2, and such loan was sanctioned vide the Respondent Bank’s letter dated 22.3.2003 (Ext.B1).

25. From his side, the Complainant had not placed any document whatsoever to show that the loan obtained by him in 1999 had been restructured and carried beyond 2002 at any stage.  Further, even in his original Complaint, he had not averred categorically that his loan had been restructured at any stage beyond the year 2002.  On the contrary, in Para 2 of his original Complaint, the averments made were palpably evasive and indirectly sought to indicate as if the original loan of 1999 had been “rescheduled” without specifying, when the said Account had been finally closed, as the following text of his relevant averments would clearly go to reveal -

“2. The Petitioner had availed Agricultural loan for Coffee cultivation from the above said bank during 1999.  Due to severe drought and fall in price of agricultural produce he could not repay the said loan and become overdue.  The loan was re-scheduled but even then could not settle and again it was overdue.  At this juncture, in 2010 the Government of India through Coffee Board introduced a Coffee Debt Relief Package to support the small coffee planters, having long overdue loans taken for coffee cultivation.  As per this small coffee planters, having less than 10 HA.  Coffee holdings, who had availed loan for coffee cultivation before the year 2002 and outstanding as on 30.6.2009, 50% of the loan outstanding upto a maximum of 5 lakh will be borne by the Govt. of India, 25% to be borne by respective banks and remaining 25%$ to be re-scheduled for settlement.”

 

26. In this view of the matter, it becomes crystal clear that the Complainant’s vague averment of his loan of 1999 having been “restructured” was altogether incorrect, since it has been seen from the original documents produced on behalf of the Bank concerned that actually he had applied for and obtained a fresh loan in the month of March, 2003 which fact would appear to have been carefully suppressed in his original Complaint.

27. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant, however, sought to draw our attention to Clause 11 of the Sanction Letter pertaining to the Complainant’s Pre-2002 loan which stated that the Bank had the discretion to modify the terms and conditions of the loan in its discretion, when from Clause 2 of the Sanction Letter dated 12.2.2001, it was clear that the period of such cash credit loan was one year from 29.12.2000.  Ld. Counsel for the Complainant therefore sought to argue that by invoking such Clause 11 of the Sanction Letter, the loan covered under the same had possibly been restructured by the Bank.  But, there was no such averment nor any statement made by the Complainant regarding any such invocation of Clause 11 on the part of the Bank.

28. In respect of the Complainant- K.A. Jose, who is the Respondent No. 1 in RP No. 2517 of 2017, however, the Bank could not produce the original documents pertaining to his loan Accounts.  It was submitted by Ld. Counsel appearing for the Bank before us on 16.10.2024, that such documents were not traceable as the matter had become very old till that time.  It is, however, a matter of record that copy of the similar Sanction Letter of the loan granted to the Complainant- K.A. Jose had been produced before the Ld. District Forum and had also similarly been Exhibited, although the Forum did not rely upon the same for want of the original.

29. In view of such material produced before us, we find no reason to presume that the case of the Respondent/Complaint- K.A. Jose was materially different from that of K.A. Roy.  This is because, as already seen, the Complainant Case filed by K.A. Roy was not in connection with his old loan of 1999-2000, but of a subsequent loan of the year 2003, and such transactions pertaining to the said subsequent loan were consciously suppressed by him and the averments were cleverly drafted as if to suggest that it was actually a “re-structuring” of his Pre-2002 loan, in support of which contention he was unable to produce any documents whatsoever, whereas, by producing the originals of the documents pertaining to the loan sanctioned to him in 2003, the Petitioners have been able to establish that the Complainant had not approached the Ld. District Forum for filing his Complaint, with clean hands.

30. Needless to mention, the averments of the Complainant- K.A. Jose regarding “restructuring” of his loan of 1999 were identically vague and a mere verbatim copy of the averments in this regard made by the Complainant- K.A. Roy in Para 2 of his original Complaint, which has already been re-produced above.

31. Consequently, these Revision Petitions are allowed after setting aside the Orders passed by both the Ld. Fora below, and the Complaints filed by the Respondents before the Ld. District Forum accordingly stand dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

32. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.