BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.100/2009

Between

Complainant : Alice Dominicson,

Varakukalayil House,

Velliyamattom P.O,

Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : The Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Thodupuzha Branch,

Thodupuzha P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: V.C.Sebastian)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant availed a loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the opposite party for cultivating Vanila, Coffee etc. Because of the destruction in agriculture and also due to the diminish in market value of the products, the complainant was not able to repay the loan amount. The complainant spent a lot of money other than the loan for the cultivation of Vanila. In 2008, the Central Government introduced debt waiver scheme and debt relief scheme for the agriculturists and so the complainant applied to include her loan in the debt waiver scheme introduced by the Government. The loss caused to the complainant because of the failure in agriculture was also informed to the opposite party. But when the list of the agriculturists who entitled for the same was published by the opposite party, it is stated that when the complainant is entitled only for the concession of Rs.43,000/-. When enquired about the same in the opposite party's office, it revealed that the complainant will get a concession of Rs.43,000/- only if the complainant pays Rs.2.5 lakhs to the opposite party's office which is the due of the loan amounts. The complainant is very much effected due to the low price of agriculture crops. So the complainant filed a petition before the Regional Manager of the opposite party for re-considering the same, on 28.07.2008. They replied stating that the complainant is having larger area of property and so he is only entitled for concession of Rs.43,000/-. The complainant having only 1.5 acres of property and she is entitled for getting debt relief scheme declared by the Central Government. Hence the petition is filed for getting direction to include in the debt waiver scheme declared by the Central Government.

2. The opposite party filed written version stating that the petition is not maintainable. The competent authority to which the complainant should file a complaint about the agricultural debt and relief scheme of the Government is the Nodal Officer. Government is also a necessary party to this petition. The opposite party is only acting upon the decision of the Government. There is no Consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party in the dispute of loan waiver debt relief scheme.

Complainant availed agricultural cash credit loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs by mortgaging his 1.5 acres of property, but another 6 acres of land of her husband which is an agricultural land was also showed as security by producing the tax receipt of the same. Hypothication agreement, demand promisory note etc.were signed and given by the complainant at the time of receiving the loan on 22.09.2003. The complainant is not entitled to get a debt write off scheme, but she is entitled to get the concession of debt relief scheme. So she will get a concession of Rs.46,813/- only, if she remits Rs.1,40,439/- before 36.09.2009. The complainant is not a small scale agriculturist in the preview of loan waiver scheme. So her application will come into the preview of debt relief scheme. The inspection agency of the Bank perused the documents and decided the same. If she pays 75% of the entire due before 30.06.2009, she will get a concession of 25%, which is Rs.48,813/-. The husband of the complainant also availed loan from Union Bank of India, Kalayanthany Branch in the same scheme and a complaint has filed against them also. So the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as per the petition.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1 series(1-14) marked on the side of the opposite party.
 

5. The POINT:- The petition is filed for getting a direction against the opposite party for including the petitioners loan in the debt waiver scheme introduced by the Government in 2008 for the agriculturists. The complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that, she is the absolute owner of 1.5 acres of land and she availed a loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the opposite party's Bank in 2003 for the cultivation of Vanila, Coffee etc. The said loan was closed in March 2006 by paying an amount of Rs.1,80,050/-. Receipt for the same was marked as Ext.P3. Again she availed a loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs in the year 2006. Market value of the crops were diminished and there was destruction in agriculture, so she was not able to repay the loan. Central Government introduced debt relief scheme in 2008 and she applied for the benefit of the same. But the opposite party denied the same stating that she is entitled to get benefit of Rs.43,000/- only. So a complaint was filed to the Regional Manager of the opposite parties. Ext.P1 is the copy of the same. A reply received from the Regional Manager stating that the complainant is having a land area of cultivation more than 5 acres as per the records. So the complainant is treated as other farmers and hence eligible for O.T.S scheme under the agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme 2008. She will not come into the preview of marginal farmer means, a farmer cultivating land up to 1 hector which is 2.5 acres. Under O.T.S scheme the farmer will be given a rebate of 25% of the eligible amount subject to the condition that the farmer should pay the balance of 75% of the eligible amount. The opposite party is examined as DW1. As per DW1, the complainant mortgaged her 1.5 acres of property to the opposite party's Bank for availing the loan. The loan application was marked as Ext.R1(series). She also produced tax receipt of the landed property of her husband which is having an area of 7.5 acres of land which is also treated as agricultural land. The tax receipt is marked as Ext.R1(series). The Government will not give reimbursement, if the bank includes the complainant in any other scheme. There will be inspection from Reserve Bank of India and auditing in the Bank for the same. The husband of the complainant availed loan from Kalayanthani Bank and a complaint is also filed against that Bank. In order to cheat the Bank and the Government she has transferred her property in the name of some other persons.

The only dispute is that whether the complainant is the owner or in possession of the property more than one hector. As per the scheme introduced by the government a farmer is liable for a debt waiver benefit, if that farmer possess only 1 hector of land that is 2.5 hectors who is called a marginal farmer. Ext.R1(9) is the copy of the order of the Government. As per Ext.R1(series), tax receipt produced by the complainant at the time

of availing the loan in 2003 she possess a property about 7.54 acres. But as per PW1 she closed the entire loan availed at 2003 by paying Rs.1,80,050/- on 29.03.2006. Ext.P1 is the copy of the receipt for the same. Again she availed a loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs in the year 2006, at that time she was held a property only 1.5 acres. When the learned counsel for the complainant cross examined, DW1 deposed that the loan given to the complainant in 2006 was with the security of the document received in 2003. The documents of the loan in 2003 and in 2006 are one and the same. DW1 deposed that even though the loan of the year 2003 was closed by the complainant the continuation of the same was given in 2006. The complainant deliberately transferred the property of the complainant to another person in order to cheat the bank and the government. It cannot be believable that the bank disbursed 1.5 lakhs rupees as loan to the complainant in 2006 without getting the fresh tax receipt or new encumbrance certificate of the property which is already mortgaged. Complainant also never produced any documents to prove that they are having only 1.5 acres of land at the time of availing loan in 2006. So we think that the Bank did not conduct an enquiry and true investigation about the possession of the agricultural land of the complainant at the time of distributing loan in the year 2006. The opposite party only perused the documents produced by the complainant at the time of disbursing the 1st loan, that is in 2003. So a true and correct enquiry is needed to clarify that whether the complainant possess a property more than 2.5 acres at the time of availing 2nd loan, which is in 2006. If she possess property below 2.5 acres, she is entitled to get the debt waiver scheme declared by the Government.

Hence the petition partially allowed. The opposite party is directed to reconsider the application for including in the debt waiver scheme given by the complainant. The opposite party is directed to conduct true and correct investigation, about the ownership and possession of the property of the complainant at the time of availing loan in 2006 before deciding on that application. Till that, all the further proceedings against the property of the complainant may be kept in abeyance.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2009

                              Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

                             Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

                             Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Alice Dominicson

On the side of Opposite Party :

DW1 - K.K.Krishnan

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - True copy of complainant's complaint dated 28.07.2008 addresed to the Assistant General Manager of opposite party's Regional Office at Ernakulam

Ext.P2 - Letter No.RO/KER/ADV/28/1892 dated 31.07.2008 of Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Ernakulam

Ext.P2 - Receipt No.198646 dated 29.03.2006

On the side of Opposite Party :

Ext.R1(series) - True copy of Tax receipts(5 Nos), Loan application,   Government Order etc.