DATE OF FILING : 7.10.2009.

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.194/2009

Between

Complainant : Jinto Jose,

Maradikkunnel House,

Muthalakkodam P.O.,

Thodupuzha P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank,

Thodupuzha Branch,

Thodupuzha P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv.Thomas Sebastian)

2. The Deputy Tahsildar (R.R),

Thodupuzha,

Thodupuzha P.O.,

Idukki District.

3. The Village Officer,

Thodupuzha Village,

Thodupuzha P.O.,

Idukki District.

O R D E R
 

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant who is an unemployed degree holder availed a loan of Rs.55,500/- from the opposite party bank as self employment in PMRY scheme. With a contribution of Rs.4,500/- from the complainant, he started a goat farm with an amount of Rs.60,000/-. In the beginning, the complainant purchased 15 goats, he attended the one month training conducted by the industrial department. The period of loan was for 5 years. The complainant promptly repaid the loan amount for the 1^st year, so an amount of Rs.15,105/- paid to the opposite party bank. The surety for his loan was his father and 15 goats were also insured for the same amount. In the middle of 2008 all the goats except one were died due to viral disease. This matter was informed to the opposite party for getting the insurance amount, but the opposite party replied that the insurance premium was not renewed in the second year. So the complainant was not able to get the insurance amount from the company. The subsidy from the government was also denied by the act of the opposite party, which amounts to Rs.7,500/-. The opposite party charged an interest of 13.25% from the complainant eventhough the interest rate of the agricultural loan was 6%. The period of the loan was 5 years, but the opposite party directed to clear the entire amount in lump sum. The complainant is entitled to get the benefits declared by the government for the agricultural loan, but it was denied by the opposite party. The opposite party deliberately avoided to renew the insurance premium and so the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. A demand notice was issued by the opposite party on 25.9.2009 stating that to pay the entire amount Rs.56,801/- within 10 days. So the petition is filed for getting the benefit declared by the government for agricultural loan.

2. The 1^st opposite party filed written version and admitted that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.55,500/- from the 1^st opposite party under PMRY scheme for purchasing 15 goats as term loan repayable in monthly instalments. It is admitted that an amount of Rs.15,105/- was paid towards the loan account by the complainant. 15 goats purchased by the complainant under the said scheme were duly insured under the policy No.101102/47/07/41/00000092 for the period from 4.5.2007 to 3.5.2008 with United India Insurance Company Ltd. On expiry of said policy, again the above said 15 goats were duly insured under the policy No.101102/47/08/41/00000081 for the period from 4.8.2008 to 3.5.2009. The premium of Rs.3,371/- was paid by the opposite party. The complainant never informed the 1^st opposite party about the death of the goats and has not made any claim on insurance amount. It is learned that none of the complainant's goat died due to viral fever. The 1^st opposite party obtained Rs.7,500/- as subsidy for the same. But that amount was deposited on 24.4.2008 as fixed deposit. As per PMRY scheme the 1^st opposite party shall credit the subsidy amount to the loan account only after lock in period of 3 years from the date of loan. By depositing subsidy amount as fixed amount, the complainant will get interest on the subsidy amount at the rate of loan interest. So the complainant will not suffer any loss of interest by depositing the subsidy amount. The complainant committed default in repayment of loan amount. So the loan amount became Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 28.2.2009. 1^st opposite party is entitled to claim the whole outstanding in lump sum in case of default in payment of the instalments or violation of any condition of the said loan or irregularity in repaying the loan amount. As per the loan agreement the complainant has agreed to pay interest at the rate of 13.25% per annum or as per directions of RBI. Now the prevailing interest rate is 10.75% per annum. The complainant is not eligible for any benefit under Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme. And there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party.
 

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

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 and Exts. P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant. The oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R6 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
 

5. The POINT :- The complainant availed a loan from the opposite party bank under PMRY scheme for the purchase of 15 goats. The goats were duly insured by the opposite party but the complainant never received the insurance amount of the goats when they died due to viral disease. The complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 raised a fund of Rs.4,500/- as his own contribution and by the amount availed as bank loan Rs.55,500/-, spent to purchase 15 goats for his self employment. He also attended the training class conducted by the Industrial Department for PMRY scheme. He was promptly repaying the loan amount for the 1^st year and an amount of Rs.15,105/- was repaid to the opposite party bank. Ext. P3 is the copy of the loan account.

Unfortunately in the middle of 2008, the goats were died due to viral disease. The matter was duly informed to the opposite party for getting the insurance amount. But the opposite party replied that the insurance premium was not renewed by them. But the opposite party accounted an amount of Rs.3,371/- on 24.4.2008, which is the amount for the insurance premium in the loan account. The entire loan became due after death of the goats and the opposite party initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the complainant for the entire amount. Copy of the same is marked as Ext.P1. Lawyer's notice was issued by the opposite party demanding the entire payment and it was replied by the complainant on 2.3.2009. Ext.P2 is the copy of the same. The period of the loan was 5 years, the opposite party deliberately avoid the renewal of the policy and so the complainant denied the insurance amount from the insurance company. PW2 is the doctor who issued the certificate stating that 15 goats of the complainant were died suddenly on 29.6.2008 due to disease and the complainant incurred a loss of Rs.98,000/-. The certificate is marked as Ext.P4. PW2 deposed that, he investigated the place where the goats were died. 6 of the goats were died suddenly and the others were in serious with the disease. The balance were also died in the evening and it was informed by the complainant to the doctor. PW2 inspected the place and there were ear tag on the carcass. PW2 was working at Mullaringadu veterinary hospital , but the matter was not entered in the register because it was a Sunday. PW2 informed the complainant that the post-mortem of the died animals should be conducted with the knowledge of the district veterinary hospital. DW1 is the manager of the opposite party bank. He has admitted that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.55,500/- from the bank under the PMRY scheme for purchasing 15 goats. The date of loan was 4.5.2007. The complainant repaid Rs.15,105/- towards the loan amount. 15 goats purchased by the complainant were duly insured for the period from 4.5.2007 to 3.5.2008 with United India Insurance Company Ltd. Ext.R1 is the copy of the insurance certificate. The said policy were renewed for the period from 4.5.2008 to 3.5.2009. Ext.R2 is the copy of the insurance policy of the renewed period. The subsidy amount Rs.7,500/- was obtained from the government, but the amount was deposited in the opposite party bank for 3 years as per PMRY scheme. Ext.R3 is the fixed deposit receipt. The complainant will get the interest on subsidy amount at the rate of loan interest. As per the loan agreement, the complainant has agreed to pay interest at the rate of 13.25% per annum. Ext.R5 is the copy of the letter of hypothecation. Ext.R6 is the demand notice issued to the complainant stating the due of instalments, in which the insurance premium Rs.3,371/- is also written as due.
 

PW1 who is a graduate who availed an agricultural loan for a goat farm in PMRY scheme by raising fund of Rs.4,500/- by himself and with the loan amount Rs.55,500/-. He was promptly paying the loan amount. Ext.P3 shows that he repaid the loan amount Rs.15,105/- in the 1^st year. Unfortunately, the goats were died in the middle of 2008 and he was not able to repay the loan. Ext.P4 is the certificate issued by the doctor stating that the goats were died due to viral disease. So he was not able to repay the loan amount. PW1 deposed the matter of death was informed to the opposite party in order to get the insurance amount. But the opposite party replied that the insurance premium was not renewed. As per the opposite party, they are paying the premium promptly and renewed the policy in the 2^nd year also. Ext.R2 is the renewal policy. That matter was informed to the complainant by a letter on 1.8.2008. But the goats were died in the middle of 2008. When the loan amount was became due, the opposite party started proceedings against the complainant with revenue recovery for an amount Rs.56,801/-,which is the entire amount in lump sum. The Ext.R6 notice was issued only after 2 months of the death of the goats. DW1 deposed that interest rate of primary agricultural loan is 7%, but the loan for goat farm will not come into the category of pure agricultural loan. As per the loan hypothecation agreement, which is Ext.R5, the complainant is entitled to pay the loan amount with interest 13.25%. DW1 deposed that the complainant never intimated the death of the goats to the opposite party, it was because the goats were not died as per the complainant. There is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that the death of the goats were informed to the opposite party or to the insurance company, no insurance claim was given to the insurance company by the complainant or by the opposite party bank to get insurance amount of the died goats. As per PW2, doctor, and as per the Ext.P4 certificate the goats were died due to disease. PW2 also directed PW1 to conduct post-mortem of the carcass for getting insurance, and approach the district veterinary hospital for the same. But PW1 never done anything for getting insurance premium, because the opposite party informed him the premium was not renewed. But there is no evidence to show that the death of the goats was informed to the opposite party bank by PW1. The opposite party initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the complainant on 15.9.2009, which is Ext.P1 and the petition is filed on 5.10.2009 by the complainant after receiving the notice for revenue recovery. The goats were died in the middle of 2008.

So we think that the complainant never informed the death of the goats to the opposite party, he never tried to get the insurance amount of the died goats even after one year of the death of the goats. He filed this petition before this Forum only after starting revenue recovery proceedings. What prevented the complainant to file a petition for getting insurance amount of the goats before one year. It means that the complainant is keeping something behind the curtain. He only filed this petition nearly 1 ½ years after the death of the goats. But the opposite party admitted that the complainant is an unemployed. PW1 deposed that he is not able to pay the loan amount in lump sum. The loan period is also for 5 years. So we think that the complainant should pay the loan amount to the opposite party but the opposite party must give some instalments facility to the complainant because he is an unemployed and the loan is availed in self employment scheme. The goats purchased by the complainant were also died.
 

Hence the petition partially allowed. The opposite parties are directed to give monthly instalments facility for the repayment of the loan availed by the complainant under PMRY scheme not less than 4. The opposite party may not charge the penal interest on that period.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of March, 2010.

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHANAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Jinto Jose

PW2 - Dr.Jaison George

On the side of the Opposite parties :

DW1 - M.J. Curiac

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of the Revenue Recovery Demand Notice dated 15.9.2009.

Ext.P2 - Copy of the reply notice dated 2.3.2009, by the complainant, for the lawyer's notice sent by the opposite party.

Ext.P3 - Statement of Accounts for the period from 1.1.2007 to 28.2.2009 given by Indian Overseas Bank, Thodupuzha.

Ext.P4 - Certificate issued by the Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary, Mullaringadu, dated 25.1.2020.

On the side of the Opposite parties :

Ext.R1 - Insurance Certificate of the 15 goats owned by the complainant for the period from 4.5.2007 to 3.5.2008.

Ext.R2 - Insurance Certificate of the 15 goats owned by the complainant for the renewed period from 4.5.2008 to 3.5.2009.

Ext.R3 - Copy of the Fixed Deposite Receipt dated 22.4.2008, for Rs.7,500/-.

Ext.R4 - Copy of the credit sanction Advice dated 4.5.2007 issued by the Indian Overseas Bank, Thodupuzha, to the complainant.

Ext.R5 - Copy of the letter of Hypothecation signed by the complainant dated 4.5.2007.

Ext.R6 - Copy of the demand notice issued to the complainant by the manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Thodupuzha, dated 1.8.2008.