KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.647/2016

JUDGEMENT DATED: 25.08.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.No.338/2012 of CDRF, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. S. Reghukumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JUDGEMENT

SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The opposite party in C.C.No.338/2012 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha (in short the District Forum) has filed the appeal against the order passed by the District Forum by which they were directed to write off the loan amount of the complainant. 

          2.       The averments contained in the complaint in brief are as follows:  On 11.01.2007 the complainant have taken an agricultural loan for an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) from the opposite party.  The said loan amount is liable to be adjusted in the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.  The complainant made request to the bank to get the benefits of the said scheme and the same was rejected by the bank.  The bank, thereafter initiated Revenue Recovery Proceedings and on 24.09.2012 the Tahsildar, Kuttanad had given an intimation to the complainant to appear before him to settle the loan amount of Rs.74,837/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Seven) with Revenue Recovery commission.  The failure on the part of the opposite party to waive the loan by including the same in the Debt Relief Scheme constitutes deficiency in service on their part.  The complainant sought for the relief of waiver of loan and claimed Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation.

          3.       The opposite party filed version raising following contentions:  The complainant is not entitled to get the benefits of the Debt Relief Scheme of 2008.  In compliance of the Reserve Bank of India circulars, the loan of all eligible farmers were published in the notice board of the opposite party bank and same was forwarded to the Regional Office on 27.06.2008.  The benefits were extended up to 30.06.2008.  Any person, who is aggrieved on the ground that his name is not included in the list published by the bank, shall make representation to the Grievances Redressal Officer and the representation shall be disposed of within a period of thirty days by the Grievance Redressal Officer.  The complainant did not prefer any such representation.  But he preferred the complaint before this Forum, after four years.  As per the scheme, inorder to get benefit of that scheme the loan should have become overdue on 31.12.2007 and shall remain unpaid till 29.02.2008.  So the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of that scheme.  Since the complainant had land property of more than five acres he is not a marginal or small farmer as classified under the scheme.  The complainant has filed the complaint with the object to delay the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against him.  The complainant is not entitled to get any of the relief prayed for.

          4.       The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A2 were marked on his side.  On the side of the opposite party RW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B4 were marked.  After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the District Forum has passed the impugned order.  Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum the opposite party had filed the present appeal.

          5.       The notice to the respondent was effected by making paper publication and he did not appear and remained exparte. 

          6.       Heard both sides.  Perused the records.  The parties are referred according to their status/rank in the complaint.

          7.       The counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation.  The District Forum has considered the question of limitation as Point number 1 (one) in the Order and it was found that the complaint is not barred by limitation and the complaint is maintainable.  On 11.01.2007 the complainant had taken an agricultural loan from the opposite party.  According to the complainant he is entitled to get the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and the loan amount is liable to be written off.  It is stated by the opposite party that the Debt Relief Scheme came into effect in 2008.  According to the opposite party the list of eligible farmers who are entitled to get the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme was published by them in the notice board on 30.06.2008.  If any person is aggrieved by that, that his name is not included in the list he has to make representation to the Grievance Redressal Officer and every such representation has to be disposed of within a period of thirty days by the Grievance Redressal Officer.  Admittedly complainant has not filed any such representation before the Grievance Redressal Officer.  According to the opposite party the cause of action for the complainant to file the complaint had arisen on 30.06.2008 and he had to file the complaint within two years from that date, as per Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint was filed on 20.10.2012.   So according to the opposite party the complaint is barred by limitation.  PW1, the complainant deposed that he was not aware of the fact that his name was not included in the list published by the opposite party till 24.09.2012 when he received notice from the Tahsildar regarding the Revenue Recovery Proceedings taken against him.  So the cause of action for the complainant for filing the complaint had arisen on 24.09.2012 when he received the notice from the Tahsildar regarding the Revenue Recovery Proceedings.  Considering these facts the District Forum has rightly found that the complaint is not barred by limitation and the complaint is maintainable.  We consider that there is no reason/ground to interfere with the said finding of the District Forum.

          8.       As stated above, on 11.01.2007 the complainant availed an agricultural loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) from the opposite party bank.  According to him he is entitled to get the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme of 2008.  He approached the opposite party for getting the benefit of the loan but it was rejected by them.  On 24.09.2012 he received a notice from the Tahsildar regarding the Revenue Recovery Proceedings taken against him for realization of Rs.74,837/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Seven).  The prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite party to write off the loan amount.  The District Forum found that the complainant is entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme and directed the opposite party to write off the loan amount.  According to the appellant/opposite party the finding of the District Forum is not correct.   The guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India regarding the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 was produced by the opposite party before the District Forum and it was marked as Exhibit B1.  As per Exhibit B1 the list of persons who are eligible for the benefits of the loan has to be published by the opposite party bank on or before 30.06.2008.  It is stated by the opposite party that they had published the list and the name of the complainant was not included in the list since he is not eligible for the benefits.  As per Exhibit B1 if any person is aggrieved, that his name is not included in the list, he has to make representation before the Grievance Redressal Officer and he has to dispose of the representation within a period of thirty days.  Admittedly the complainant has not filed any representation before the Grievance Redressal Officer.  It is stated by the complainant that he had requested the opposite party bank to give him the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme, to write off the loan amount.  But PW1 admitted that he had not made any written request to the opposite party bank.  Further in re-examination PW1 deposed that he made the request to the opposite party after receiving the notice of the Revenue Recovery Proceedings, in 2012.  Exhibit B3 is the copy of the agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party when he availed the loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) from the opposite party on 11.01.2007 and Exhibit B2 is the copy of the sanctioning order of the loan.  From Exhibit B1 it can be seen that in order to get the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme the loan amount should have become overdue on 31.12.2007 and it will stand unpaid till 29.02.2008.  The District Forum found that the complainant availed loan on 12.01.2007 which has to be repaid within thirty six months and the opposite party had no case that the complainant had remitted any instalments towards the loan and the complainant defaulted payment of instalments till 31.12.2007.  So the loan amount of the complainant has become overdue on 31.12.2007.  As submitted by the counsel for the appellant, on a perusal of Exhibits B2 and B3 it can be seen that the said finding of the District Forum is not correct.  As per Exhibit B3 the principle amount in the loan transaction has to be repaid only after thirty six months.  Interest @9% per annum for that amount has to be charged on annual basis.  As deposed by RW1 it is not an instalment scheme.  So the complainant is not bound to remit any amount till 31.12.2007.  Hence the finding of the District Forum that the complainant availed the loan on 12.01.2007 and he has not remitted any amount till 31.12.2007, and to the loan amount became overdue as on 31.12.2007 is not correct.  The loan amount of the complainant will become overdue only on 12.01.2010.  The interest for the amount will become payable only on 12.07.2008, after one year from the date of availing the loan.  So it can be seen that even that amount has not become overdue on 31.12.2007.  It is to be noted that Exhibit A2 notice was issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 10.12.2010 and Exhibit A1 notice was issued by them on 08.04.2021, in which it is stated that the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) has become overdue on 12.01.2010.  In these circumstances it can be found that the finding of the District Forum that the loan amount of the complainant has become overdue on 31.12.2007 is not correct.

          9.       It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant had availed the loan for the purpose of raising crops in 5.72 acres of land which is evidenced by Exhibit B1.  So he is not a marginal or small farmer as classified under the scheme to claim the benefit.  In Clause (5) of Exhibit B1 it is stated that in case of small or marginal farmer the entire eligible amount shall be waived.  As per Exhibit B1 “marginal farmer” means “a farmer cultivating agricultural land up to one hectre (2.5 acres).”  “small farmer” means “a farmer cultivating agricultural land of more than one hectre and up to two hectres (5 acres).”  “other farmer” means “a farmer cultivating agricultural land of more than two hectres (more than 5 acres).”  The District Forum relying on explanation 3 of Clause 3.7 of Exhibit B1 found that the complainant can be classified as a small and marginal farmer.  Explanation 3 of Clause 3.7 of Exhibit B1 states that in case of farmer who had obtained investment credit for allied activities where the principle of loan amount does not exceed Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) he would be classified as small and marginal farmer and if the principle amount exceed Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) he would be classified as other farmer, irrespective in both the cases, the size of the land holding, if any.   As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant Explanation 3 Clause 3.7 of Exhibit B1 deals with the case of farmers who obtained investment credit for allied activities and Exhibit B2 and B3 shows that the complainant had availed agricultural loan for the purpose of raising crops in 5.72 acres of land and so the complainant cannot be considered as a farmer who had obtained invested credit.  In Exhibit B1 it is stated that the scheme will cover direct agricultural loans extended to ‘marginal and small farmers’ and ‘other farmers’ by scheduled Commercial Banks, Regional Banks etc.  As per Exhibit B1 ‘Direct Agricultural Loan’ means Short Term Production loans and Investment Loans provided directly to farmers for agricultural purpose.  As per Exhibit B1 ‘Short Term Production Loan’ means a loan given in connection with the raising of crops which is to be repaid within eighteen months.  It will include working capital loan, not exceeding Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) for traditional and non-traditional plantations and horticulture.  The District Forum found that it is clear that the complainant has not availed ‘Short Term Production Loan’ and so it has to be considered that the complainant availed the ‘Investment Loan.’  On a perusal of Exhibit B1 it can be seen that the said finding of the District Forum is not correct.  As per Clause 3.3 of Exhibit B1 ‘Investment Loan’ means investment credit for direct agricultural activities extending for meeting outlays relating t the replacement and maintenance of wasting assets and capital investment designed to increase the output from the land, deepening of wells, sinking of new wells, installation of pump sets, purchase of tractor/pair of bullocks etc. and investment credit for allied activities extended for acquiring assets in respect of activities allied to agriculture e.g. diary, poultry farming, fisheries, green house, biogas etc.  From Exhibit B2 and B3 it can be seen that the complainant had availed a crop loan for making cultivation in his 5.72 acres of land and the loan availed by the complainant is not an ‘Investment Loan’ as stated in Exhibit B1.  So explanation 3 of Clause 3.7 of Exhibit B1 is not applicable to the complainant.  So the finding of the District Forum that the complainant availed investment loan and as per explanation 3 of Clause 3.7 the complainant can be considered as a small and marginal farmer irrespective of the size of the land holding is not at all sustainable.  From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the complainant is not entitled to the benefit under the Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.  So the finding of the District Forum that the complainant is entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme and the Order passed by the District Forum directing the opposite party to write off the loan amount is liable to be set aside.  We do so.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order passed by the District Forum directing the opposite party to write off the loan amount of the complainant is set aside.  Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

SL