Date of filing : 10-11-2011
Date of order : 08-06-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.301/2011
Dated this, the 8th day of June 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
M.Bhaskaran, S/o.Kannan, } Complainant
Vayambu, Parkalayi.Po. Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv. E.Sukumaran, Hosdurg)
1. The Manager, Hosdurg Primary Co-op. } Opposite parties
Agrl.&Rural Development Bank Ltd.
Chullikkara Branch, Po. Chullikkara
2. The Senior Inspector/Special Sale Officer
Hosdurg Primary Co-op. Agrl.&Rural
Development Bank Ltd, Kanhangad. Po
( Ops 1 & 2. Adv. Vipin.T.Jose, Hosdurg)
3. The Asst. Manager, Reserve Bank of India .
Rural Planning and Credit Department,
Bekary Junction, P.B.No.6507, Trivandrum.33
4. The General Manager (Convener) Canara Bank,
Canara Bank, State Level Bankers Committees Cell,
Circle Office, Canara Bank Building. P.B No.159.Trivandrum.
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER
The facts of the case in brief as follows:-
That the complainant is an agriculturist who availed two agricultural loans (1) `11,450/- under loan A/c. 231/CNP in four instalments in between 19-11-1997 to 5-3-2001 (2) `13,000/- under 108/MI on 19-11-1997 and (3) `50,000/- under 771/RHS for construction of house from 1st opposite party bank. But successive natural calamities and full 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 his loan ought to have been waived as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver Relief Scheme formulated by the Central Government.
2. 1st and 2nd opposite parties in their joint version have stated that they have given all the benefits to the complainant as per law and the complainant paid all the amount in loan account No. 231/CNP and the said loan is closed on 31-03-2011.The loan account No.1018/MI, all outstanding amount in the loan amount was waived as per the 2008 Scheme and the said loan is not subsisting.
3. The further contention of these opposite parties is that loan No.771/RHS is a housing loan it is not covered in any of the agricultural package announced by the Government. Hence the complainant is liable to pay the said outstanding loan amount along with future interest, penal interest and other charges. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost and compensatory costs of the opposite parties.
4. Here the complainant had filed this false complaint suppressing the fact that the agricultural loans availed him was closed and no amount is due and the recovery proceedings initiated by opposite parties are only in respect of housing loans. Housing loan will not come under ADWR Scheme. Suppressing all those facts he obtained interim order from this Forum and dragged the opposite parties unnecessarily before the Forum. The complainant abused the process of law. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Therefore the complaint is dismissed directing the complainant to pay a cost of `3000/- to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
