D.of.F:12/12/2011

D. of O: 22/5/2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                       CC.NO.338/2011

                           Dated this, the 22nd  day of May 2012

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                        : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                 : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                                    : MEMBER 

Rani James, W/o James Joseph,

ThanneerPanthal, Kanhirapoil Po,

Via Anandashram , Kasaragod,               :Complainant

(Adv.E.Sukumaran, Hosdurg)

1.The  Manager, State Bank of India,

 Kanhangad Branch,PO. Kanhangad ,Kasaragod.

(Adv.Kodoth Narayanan,Hosdurg)

2.The Tahasildar (RR),

Taluk Office  Hosdurg, Kanhangad,PO.Kasaragod.             :  Opposite parties

3.The Village Officer, Thayannur Village Office

Po. Thayannur ,Kasaragod

4.The Assistant Manager, RBI,

 Rural Planning & Credit Department,

 Bekary Junction,   P.B.No.6507, Thiruvananthapuram.

Ops 2 to 4 Exparte)

5.The General Manager(Convener)

 Canara Bank, State Level Bankers Committees Cell

Circle Office, Canara Bank Bldg PB No.159

M.G. Road, Trivandrum

(Adv.Sadananda Kamath,Kasaragod)

                                                                  ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ     : PRESIDENT

   Complainant is an agriculturist who availed agricultural loan from  the Ist opposite party Bank.  But successive natural calamities and fall in price of  agrarian products resulted in  crop loss and complainant could not repay the amount.  Therefore the bank has initiated recovery proceedings against the property of the complainant.  According to  the  complainant her loan ought to have been waived as per the Agriculture Debt Waiver Relief Scheme  formulated by the Central Govt. in 2008.  But opposite party did not give the benefits of the said scheme to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

2.     Ist opposite party the  main contesting opposite party in their version has stated that they have given all benefits to the complainant as per law  and deduct the amount due to the bank as per the scheme and the recovery proceedings are initiated  only for the balance amount and there is no deficiency in service  on their part.

3.    Both sides heard. 

4. In a similar case the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in WPC Nos. 12552, 12554,12569,and  12570/2011 has  directed the beneficiaries  of the said Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief  Scheme 2008 to approach the Grievance Redressal officer  for ventilating their grievance in terms of the circular of NABARD explaining the directions for  granting the Debt Waiver Relief  to the beneficiaries. Clause 10-3 of the  said scheme envisages that the beneficiaries of the said scheme can approach the Grievance Redressal Officer for the redressal of their grievances if they have a contention  that their names were not included in the  lists or the relief calculated is  wrong.

5.   In view  of the above,  we direct the complainant to approach the Grievance Redressal  Officer within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order.  The Grievance Redressal  Officer  shall consider representation and dispose the same expeditiously.  Till the disposal of the said representation all further proceedings for recovery of the amounts involved in agricultural loans availed by the complainant shall be kept in abeyance.  It is made clear that if no representation is filed by the complainant as stipulated within the time mentioned above, then the opposite parties shall be free to continue recovery proceedings initiated by them.

        The complaint is disposed as above.

Sd/                                                       Sd/                                                      Sd/    

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

                                                                                     /Forwarded by Order/

eva                                                                      SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT