Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/08/249

Narayani Amma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kadakam Service Co-op. Bank - Opp.Party(s)

08 Apr 2010

ORDER


IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
OLD S.P. OFFICE, PULIKUNNU
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/249

Narayani Amma
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Kadakam Service Co-op. Bank
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

D.o.F: 19/11/08

D.o.O:05/4/2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC..249/08

                        Dated this, the 05th  day of April 2010.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                                : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI                         : MEMBER

 

Smt.Narayani Amma

W/o Kunhambu Nair, Adukkathotty House,                   : Complainant

Karadka Po,Kasaragod.

(Adv.M.Narayana Bhat,Kasaragod)

1. The Kadakam Service Co-op Bank Ltd,

     rep. by its Secretary, Mulleria Branch,

     Mulleria PO, Karadka,Kasaragod

(Adv.A.B.Nair,Kasaragod)

2. The Joint Registrar of Co-op Societies,

     Civil Station Vidyanagar PO,    Kasaragod

3.  The Dist.Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kasaragod                       : Opposite parties

      rep by its Manager, Kasaragod Po,

4.  The Nodal Officer, Central Debt Relief Scheme,

      Kadakam Service Co-op Bank Ltd,

       Mulleria PO, Karadka,Kasaragod

(Adv.A.B.Nair,Kasaragod)

5.  The National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development

     rep. by its Chief Manager, Kerala Regional Office,

     P.B.No.5613, Thiruvananthapuram (Exparte)

 

                                         

                                           ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ  : PRESIDENT

 

        The case of the complainant  is that she availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- from Ist opposite party bank for agricultural purpose.  The due date of the loan repayment was 31/12/2007.  But due to the loss of agricultural crops she could not pay the amount.  Meanwhile under the Central  Debt Relief Scheme introduced by the Central Government all agricultural loans, which was due as on the particular date, were to be waived.  The Ist opposite party published the list of eligible farmers under the debt relief scheme.  The name of complainant was included in the list and the amount of Rs.26364/- due from her was written off.  Later in July 2008, the complainant came to know that her name is excluded from the list of farmers eligible for waiver of loan.  On enquiry, Ist OP told the complainant that her name is excluded due to the intervention of 3rd opposite party.  According to complainant the loan was due on 31/12/2007 and the Ist OP had even sent her a demand notice   wherein it was stated that the loan is falls due on 31/12/2007.  The exclusion of her name from the list of eligible farmers amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

2.   According to opposite parties 1&4 name of complainant was included in the preliminary list of farmers who are eligible for the Debt relief Scheme.  But OP.3 rejected the claim of the complainant since the loan was premature and not completed one year.  The Ist OP is under control of opposite parties 2&3 and bound by the guidelines of Reserve Bank and 5th opposite party.  Opposite parties 3& 5 excluded the name of the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in their service.

 

3.  According to 2nd opposite party, the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loan was disbursed on 27/3/07 and as per the circular pertaining to the disbursement and repayment of the KCC loan, the due date of the loan was 26/3/08.  Though the name of the complainant was included in the preliminary list of the farmers who are eligible for debt relief, on further enquiry it was found that the loan of the complainant became due only on 26/3/08.  As per the central debt relief scheme only those loan that is due from 31/12/07 to 27/2/08 were eligible to be written off.  The loan due notice issued by the Secretary of Ist opposite party was against the Circular issued with respect to the disbursement of KCC loan.  The final list is prepared as per the subsequent circulars and directions of the government and as per that the complainant was not entitled for loan waiver benefits.

4.     According to 3rd opposite party as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver Debt Relief Scheme 2008, the short-term production loan disbursed upto March 2007 and over due as on 31/12/2007 and remaining unpaid until Feb.29th 2008 is only eligible for the debt relief.  As per the guidelines issued by OP.NO.5 any loan under KCC scheme should be sanctioned for a period of 3 years subject to annual review.  Each withdrawal under KCC has to be repaid within a maximum period of 12 months.  A KCC account is considered to be overdue when any drawal remains outstanding for more than 12 months.  The District Level Technical Committee (DLTC) meeting join and fix the credit limit to be sanctioned for various crops under short terms loan category.  In this meeting the loan disbursement season and repayment period is also specified for each crops loan.  According to them, the repayment period allotted to a KCC short  term loan for arecanut is 12 months.  The complainant has availed KCC loan for arecanut on 27/3/2009, which became overdue only on 27/3/2008 and as per the guidelines of NABARD they are not eligible for the debt waiver.

5.     Opposite party No.5 impleaded supplementally was absent inspite of receipt of registered notice.  Hence OP.NO.5 was set exparte

6.      The complainant’s documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A5.  The counsel for the complainant and opposite parties 1&4 were heard.  Documents perused.

7.    Ext.A1 is the copy of the preliminary list of the farmers who were eligible under the debt waiver scheme prepared by Ist opposite party bank.  The name of complainant is seen included in the list.  Ext.A2 is a demand notice dtd.15/11/2007 issued by Ist opposite party to the complainant.  In the said notice it is stated that the loan availed by the complainant on 27/3/2007 is due as 31/12/07.  Ext.A5 is the Kissan Credit Card loan ledger extract pertaining to the loan of the complainant.  In Ext.A5 also the due date of the loan is shown as on 31/12/07.  Therefore, according to Ist opposite party the loan is due 31/12/07.

          But according to 2nd opposite party, the loan was actually not due as on 31/12/07 and as per the circular issued by NABARD for the loan disbursement and repayment the loanee ought to have given one year time for repayment.  But Ist OP issued demand notice against the rules of KCC loan.

8.    Upon hearing the complainant and opposite parties and perusing the documents though apparently as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 introduced by the Central Govt. shows that the loan granted to the complainant is eligible for waiver, but on looking to the scheme under which the loan is provided by Ist OP it is clear that the complainant’s loan was actually not eligible to be written off since as per the guidelines issued by the NABARD, the OP.NO.5, any loan under KCC scheme should be sanctioned for a period of 3 years subject to annual review.  Each withdrawal under KCC has to be repaid within a period of 12 months.  A KCC account is considered to be overdue when any drawal remains outstanding for more than 12 months.  The complainant has no case that the loan availed by her or granted to her is not a loan granted under Kissan Credit Card scheme.  Hence all the provisions applicable to a KCC loan are applicable in the case of its waiver also.  The whole confusion is created by Ist OP by restricting the loan period to 31/12/2007 instead of its actual due date 27/3/2008.  The complainant thereby suffered.  The 2nd OP the apex body controlling the affairs of the OP.1 admitted in their version that the secretary of Ist OP issued notice to the complainant violating the circular pertaining to the disbursement of KCC loan.   Such an act on the part of Ist OP constitutes deficiency in service.  But that does not make the complainant eligible for the waiver of the whole loan.

     In the above circumstances we pass the following order.

        Complaint is partly allowed and Ist opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- to the complainant with a cost of Rs.2000/- for the hardships and mental agony caused to her.  The prayer of the complainant to write of the loan under the ADWDR scheme is disallowed and she is directed to repay the loan amount.  However we make it clear that Ist opposite party need to pay the cost or compensation only if the complainant paid her loan dues or it is written off in  any other  subsequent schemes.  Opposite parties 2 to 5 are exonerated from the liability.  Time for compliance of this order is  limited to 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

 

MEMBER                                                 MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Exts:

A1-copy of preliminary list of farmers prepared  by OP.1

A2-15/11/07- demand notice

A3&A4-20/7/2000&27/3/07-receipts

A5-KCC loan ledger

 

 

MEMBER                                                 MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

 

eva/

 

 




......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi