The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum District Office Premises, Kolar 563 101. consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/81
Basavalingammma V.R. Marishamaimah
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Manager
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
CC Filed on 23.06.2010 Disposed on 07.09.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 07th day of September 2010 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 81/2010 Between: 1. Sri. V.R. Marishamaiah, S/o. Late Rudhrappa, Vokkaleri Village & Hobli, Kolar Taluk. 2. Smt. Basavalingamma, W/o. Sri. V.R. Marishamaiah, Vokkaleri Village & Hobli, Kolar Taluk. .Complainants V/S The Manager, Canara Bank, Vokkaleri Branch, Kolar Taluk & District. .Opposite Party ORDERS This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to waive the loans obtained from it in 2003 under the Debt Relief Scheme 2008 with costs. 2. The material facts of complainants case may be stated as follows: That the complainants obtained loan of Rs.20,000/- on 22.04.2003 and of Rs.24,000/- on 03.07.2003 respectively from OP for purchase of two cows. Thereafter the complainants reared those cows and used to sell milk and used to repay the loans. However for some unforeseen circumstances and difficulties they could not repay the entire loans as agreed and they became the defaulters. It is alleged that under the Debt Relief Scheme 2008 they were entitled to waiver of debts. They filed applications before OP and other higher authorities, but the names of complainants are not included in the list of persons who were shown to be entitled to the reliefs under the said Scheme. It is alleged that the complainants are illegally denied the said benefit by the OP. 3. The OP appeared and filed its version. It admitted the lending of two loans for purchase of cows with certain terms and conditions and that the complainants becoming the defaulters in repayment of the loans as agreed. Further it contended the outstanding amounts in these loans were already waived on 08.08.2006 under the Debt Waiver Scheme introduced by the Bank for giving reliefs to certain debtors. Therefore it contended that there is no question of giving any benefit under Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, which came into force subsequently, as no debts were outstanding in respect of the loans granted for purchase of cows. Further they contended that the complainants are well aware of the waiver of cow loans. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of complaint. 4. The complainant No.1 filed affidavit in support of their case. The Learned Counsel for OP submitted that he has no oral evidence. 5. Even assuming that for one or other reason the waiver of two debts obtained by complainants for purchase of cows, was not communicated properly to complainants, after filing the version there is proper communication of that fact. Therefore in view of the facts stated in the version the complainants could have got dismissed the complaint. 6. In the affidavit the complainant No.1 has stated that one Bank Muniyappa a Class IV employee working in OP Bank was oftenly visiting the house of complainants and was threatening them to repay the cow loans. That material fact is not stated in the complaint. The Learned Counsel for OP submitted that the waiver of debt under the Scheme 2006 attracts some disability to the debtor whose loan was waived, whereas no such disability was attached for waiver of loan under the Scheme 2008, therefore the complainant intending to get that benefit must have come with the plea to waive his debt under the Scheme 2008. Whatever may be reason for it, we think in view of the statement made by the OP in the version regarding waiver of debts in question under the Scheme 2006, the present complaint is to be dismissed. Hence we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 07th day of September 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
