Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/60

CHAIRMAN COFFEE BOARD NO 1 - Complainant(s)

Versus

MATHEW M O - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NOs.60/16 & 283/16

      JUDGMENT DATED:01.01.2019

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH                                            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI.RANJIT .R                                                                    : MEMBER

 

APPEAL NO.60/16

Chairman, Coffee Board, No.1,

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,                                              : APPELLANT

Bangalore-560 001, Karnataka.

 

(By Adv: M/s Menon & Pai)        

 

            Vs.

 

1. Mathew M.O, S/o Ouseph,

Moolancheril House,

Kazhambukunnu, Cheeral Post & Village,

Sulthan Bathery Taluk,                                       

Wayanad District.  

(By Adv: Sri. S. Reghukumar)                                         : RESPONDENTS

 

2. Manager, Canara Bank,                                                                           

Sulthan Bathery Branch,

Sulthan Bathery Post & Taluk,                                     

Wayanad District.

 

(By Adv: Sri. G.S. Kalkura)

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.283/16

Manager, Canara Bank,                                                                           

Sulthan Bathery Branch,

Sulthan Bathery Post & Taluk,                                                  : APPELLANT                     Wayanad District.

 

(By Adv: Sri. G.S. Kalkura)

 

            Vs.

 

1. Mathew M.O, S/o Ouseph,

Moolancheril House,

Kazhambukunnu, Cheeral Post & Village,

Sulthan Bathery Taluk,                                       

Wayanad District.  

 

(By Adv: Sri. S. Reghukumar)                                                     : RESPONDENTS

 

2. Chairman, Coffee Board, No.1,

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,                                 

Bangalore-560 001, Karnataka.

 

 (By Adv: M/s Menon & Pai)       

 

COMMON  JUDGMENT

SHRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER

These two appeals arise from the Order dated, 16.4.2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanadu, Kalpetta in CC.209/13.  Appeal No. 60/16 is filed by the second opposite party, Coffee Board, and Appeal No. 283/16, by the first opposite party, Canara Bank, challenging the Order of the Forum by which the first opposite party was directed to give the benefit of waiver of 25% liability on the total outstanding balance in the account of complainant, after excluding the amount already credited as on 30.6.2009  and the 2^nd opposite party, to give waiver of 50% of liability on the total outstanding balance as on 30.6.2009 excluding the amount already credited in the account of complainant.  1^st opposite party was directed to give waiver of 75% liability on the total outstanding balance in the account of complainant as on 30.6.2009 and then, to realise reimbursement from the 2^nd opposite party of its share of 50% as ordered.  First opposite party was also directed to reschedule the balance amount outstanding in the account of complainant, after waving of 75% of his liability, if so desired by him.  Opposite parties were also jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) as compensation and Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) as cost of the proceedings to complainant. The 1^st opposite party was further directed not to impose any interest on the remaining 25% of the dues from 30.6.2009, since the benefits due were not provided to him in time.  Opposite parties were directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant was allowed to have interest at 18% per annum on the whole amount due.

2.      Short facts necessary for disposal of these appeals can be summed up thus:-

Case of the complainant is that he availed a loan of Rs.4,06,000/- under the Kissan Credit Card Scheme loan (KCC loan) on 08.03.2001 and Rs.57,000/- under Farm Development Scheme loan (FD loan) on 22.5.1998 from the 1^st opposite party. The above loans were provided to Coffee Planters, and, later Central Government announced a debt relief scheme for coffee planters, namely, Coffee Debt Relief Package 2010 (CDRP 2010).  Outstanding amounts in KCC loan account and in F.D loan scheme of complainant as on 30.6.2009 were Rs.7,76,631/- and Rs.86,538/- respectively.  The first opposite party without giving the benefits under the Debt Relief Package, took steps to recall the loan amounts from the complainant initiating revenue recovery proceedings.  As per the debt relief scheme complainant is eligible for the benefits on pre 2002 loans whereunder the loanees are entitled to waiver of 50% of the total outstanding liability which will be borne by the Government of India, and also of 25% liability, which will be borne by the bank which advanced the loan. The balance amount due on the loan of complainant has also to be rescheduled for payment. The package mandated its implementation on the outstanding amount due as on 30.06.2009.  Since opposite parties did not provide these benefits of the scheme complainant filed the complaint before the forum to direct the opposite parties to grant him sum of Rs.6,46,904/- as benefits declared by the Government of India in Coffee Debt Relief Package 2010 with cost and compensation.

3.      Opposite parties filed separate versions contending that complainant is not eligible for Coffee Debt Relief Package 2010 in pre 2002 loan since the loan taken by the complainant availed under KCC was not only for coffee cultivation purpose but also for pepper, arecanut and coconut cultivation.  The other loan, ie farm loan availed by complainant, was for construction of drying yard and warehouse and so he was not eligible for the relief as per clause 1(i) of CDRP 2010, according to them.  He is eligible only for 10% waiver from Government side and 10% from the bank since the loans availed by him come under crop loans in clause 1(ii) of the package and the said benefits have already been given to complainant.  10% of the KCC loan ie Rs.41,215/- and 10% of other loan ie Rs.8,654/- were credited in the term loan account of complainant on 13.3.2011.  Complainant had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala for the same reliefs canvassed in the complaint filing WP(C) 5975/11 and that was disposed directing him to remit the entire amount with interest in eight monthly instalments. Complainant failed to comply with the order of the High Court and he has no right to file the complaint.  Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Evidence in the case consisted of the testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 on his side.  Bank Manager of first opposite party bank was examined as OPW1 and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked.  Second opposite party did not adduce any evidence.

5.      Appreciating the materials produced, the lower forum concluded that complainant is entitled to get benefit under pre 2002 loan category under the Coffee Debt Relief Package 2010 and waiver given by the first opposite party under post 2002 loan category was wrong and that amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  On such conclusion, the lower forum passed the impugned order under challenge.

6.      Heard both counsels and perused the records. 

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the complainant is not eligible for pre 2002 loan under CDRP 2010, waiver of 50% of loan liability from Government and 25% of loan liability from bank.  Since loans were availed not only for cultivating coffee, but also for cultivation of pepper, arecanut  and coconut complainant is eligible only as per clause 1(i) of CDRT 2010 ie 10% waiver from Government side and 10% waiver from bank side, which had already been given him, accordingly to counsel.

8.      Perusing Coffee Debt Relief Package 2010 (CDRP 2010), it can be seen that the scheme providing Debt Relief to the small growers of coffee distinguishes pre 2002 term loans fixing separate bench mark over the sharing of loan liability for the bank and the Coffee Board.  Pre 2002 loans covers two distinct clauses-one provided under Special Coffee Term Loans (SCTL) and the other, crop loans.  In the case of SCTL availed before 2002, 50% of the total liability subject to a maximum of Rs.5.lakhs performer has to be borne by the Board and 25% of such liability by the bank and the balance amount under the loan has to be rescheduled for payment.  For crop loans availed before 2002, 20% of waiver is provided with liability of 10% each by the Central Government and the bank, subject to a maximum of Rs.1,00,000/- per farmer.  The package shall apply to all outstanding amounts as on 30^th June 2009.

9.      Pre 2002 loans include all special coffee term loan (SCTL) created in 2002 after restructuring and consolidation of all the earlier loan of the coffee grower, accounts of that period categorized as NPA or Accounts Under Collection (AUCL) or referred to DRT.

10.    The Kissan Credit Card Scheme (KCC) loan availed by complainant is not only for cultivation of coffee but also for pepper, arecanut and coconut cultivation as per Ext.B3 hypothecation deed. The other loan is a term loan for constructing drying yard and warehouse. 

11.    Clause 4 of the package excludes the following loans.

1. All loans taken for purchase of estates or any other land loans taken for retiring the interest of the partners in the estate, car loans and housing loans of more than Rs.10,00,000/-.
2. Loans taken by coffee planter for unrelated purposes like rubber plantations, coconut plantations, paddy cultivation, ginger cultivation and business loans etc but classified by banks as coffee loans.

12.    Since the KCC loan of the complainant was taken for unrelated purposes like coconut plantation, arecanut and pepper as per Ext.B3, that loan will come only under crop loans under pre-2002loans, and he is eligible for 20% waiver with liability of 10% each being borne by Government of India and bank respectively subject to a maximum benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- per farmer.

13.    The learned counsel for the respondent argued that pre 2002 loan other than SCTL, accounts categorized as NPAs AUCL or referred to DRT are also eligible under the package.

14.    Perusing the records it is seen that as per clause 3 (iii) of CDRP itis stated that “ in case of NPA, AUCL and DRT accounts  the waiver shall be applied only on the amount outstanding at the time of change of status, while any penalty and interest loaded by bank after change of status to be absolved by the bank.  From the above it is clear that even if loan is taken before 2002 and is now NPA or AUCL or DRT, if the loan is other than SCTL,  then it will only fall under crop loans.

15.    The other loan of the complainant for Rs.57,000/- is a term loan for constructing drying yard and warehouse and, that loan will not come under any of the two categories of pre 2002 term loans, but only under Post 2002 term loan.  As per post 2002 term loan, he is eligible for waiver of 10% of the total liability subject to maximum benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- to be borne by the Government of India.

 

16.    As per Exts.B1 and B2 ie statement of accounts for the period 8.3.2001 and 17.12.2013 and from 22.5.1998 and 17.12.2013 respectively, it is seen, opposite party bank has already given the benefit of pre 2002 loan under crop loan on KCC loan, and for the term loan under post 2002

category.  The bank has thus credited an amount of Rs.41,250/-  for the KCC loan account of the complainant and an amount of Rs.8654/- in the term loan account of the complainant as on 13.3.2011.  Since the bank has

already given the benefits to the complainant he is precluded from raising any further complaint against it.

 

17.    Complainant had also approached Hon’ble High Court of Kerala for the same reliefs canvassed in the complaint, filing WP(C)5975/11 and that was disposed directing him to remit the entire amount outstanding with interest in eight monthly instalments.  Complainant failed to comply with the Order, and, instead he filed the complaint before the Forum.

 

18.    The district forum without appreciating these facts, has misconstrued the pleadings let in by the parties and passed the impugned order, which is per-se erroneous and unsustainable and liable it to be vacated.  We do so.

 

19.    Direction and orders of the lower forum over discharge of the complainant’s loan liability under the impugned order shall stand vacated.

 

In the result both appeals ie Appeal No.60/16 and Appeal No.283/16 are allowed.  Consumer complaint No.209/13 on the file of CDRF, Wayanadu, Kalpetta shall stand dismissed.  Both parties are directed to suffer their costs.

Sum deposited by the appellants for entertaining the appeals shall be released to them on their respective application.

 

JUSTICE S.S SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT .R : MEMBER

 

VL.