By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,72,000/- from the Opposite Party's bank for agricultural purposes. The title deed of land property comprising 5 acres in extent were pledged as security for the issuance of the loan. The loan availed by the Complainant was eligible for the waived of under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. The Opposite Party had already issued a certificate to the Complainant stating that the loan amount availed by the Complainant was waived under the scheme. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party's Bank to get back the documents pledged. The Opposite Party informed the Complainant that he was yet to pay some more amount towards the loan, for clearance of the liability.

2. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party:-

1. To write off the loan amount of the Complainant.

2. To give back the title deed pledged as security for the issuance of the loan amount along with cost.

3. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The issuance of the loan under Kissan Credit Card of Rs.1,72,000/- pledging the documents of 5 acres of land property on 07.07.2000 is admitted by the Opposite Party. The account became overdue on 07.07.2001. The account holder received Rs.20,000/- by cash on 13.04.2006 and Rs.1,55,139/- on 09.07.2008 as debt relief scheme. The loan granted to the Complainant was a short term loan and the Complainant is only eligible for the maximum of Rs.1,00,000/- plus interest. There was a ceiling of Rs. 1,00,000/- for short term loan for plantation purpose. The releasing of the title deed pledged could only be upon payment of Rs.1,33,585/- the existing liability of the Complainant along with interest from 01.10.2009. There is no illegality or any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party acted in compliance with the directions of Reserve Bank of India and other Authorities. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

4. Points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Party. Ext.A1 and A2, B1 to B4 are the documents considered in this case apart from the oral testimony of the Complainant.

6. The case of the Complainant is that the agricultural loan amount availed from the Opposite Parties was eligible to be waived under Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. The copy of the circular issued with clarification is marked as Ext.B1. It is undisputed that the Complainant falls in the category of the small farmer having an extent of 5 acres. The loan taken by the Complainant is purely an agricultural loan under Kissan Credit Card. The explanation on clarification in clause 4 of the circular in investments loan states that the direct agricultural loan taken under Kissan credit card would also be covered under scheme subject to the guidelines Rs.1,55,139/- was written off and the certificate was issued in that respect. In clause 3(a) it is to be mentioned the outstanding liability of the Complainant. Whereas that column for the purpose is unfilled. In the oral testimony of the Opposite Party the Complainant was entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- to be written off under the scheme since the loan issued was a production loan. On perusal of the documents produced there is nothing to substantiate that the Complainant was issued the production loan which was not entitled to write off the amount. The certificate also does not specify the outstanding liability of the Complainant. The statement of account produced by the Opposite party also shows that the liability of the Complainant still there on 09.07.2008 after deducting Rs.1,55,139/- . The benefit of the scheme is 1,14,646/- it also shows that on 28.03.2008 the amount due from the Complainant was Rs.2,69,785/-. The Complainant was entitled for the benefit of the scheme for the full amount of Rs.2,69,785/- it is also noted that the farmers who had any grievances in respect of the scheme by the concerned bank. They could have filed petition before the Grievance Redressal Officer concerned of the lending institution. The Complainant was also shut of from filing a representation before the Grievance Redressal Officer. The Complainant in this case was under concept that his name is listed among those who are eligible for debt waiver scheme. The non waiving of the loan amount taken by the Opposite Party is a deficiency in service and points are found accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to write off the loan amount of the Complainant and the documents pledged for the availing of the loan amount is to be given back to the Complainant. The Complainant is also entitled for cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only). This is to be complied by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th September 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Joy. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. P. Anantha Pai. Manager, Canara Bank.

Exhibit for the Complainant:

A1. Certificate. dt:30.06.2008

A2. Copy of Letter. dt:23.05.2008.

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

B1. Copy of the Clarification of Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008.

B2(4 sheets) Copy of the Application Cum Appraisal Form for Kisan Credit Card Scheme

B3. Copy of the Acknowledgement of Debt and Security. dt:10.11.2008.

B4 Certificate issued by Canara bank Meenangadi.