By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to return all the documents pledged by the complainant and also to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant availed a KCC loan vide No.4373 for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- on 01.09.2006 from the opposite party. The loan is availed for agricultural purpose. The said loan became due because of crop failure and the loan is written off as per the order of Central Government Debt Relief Scheme. Since the loan is written off, the complainant demanded back the documents pledged at the time of availing loan from the opposite party. But opposite party did not give back the documents and demanded Rs.1,60,543/- from the complainant towards loan clearance. The complainant is entitled to get full waiver of the loan as per scheme. So there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party and hence the complaint.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to opposite party and opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the opposite party admitted the disbursement of loan of Rs.1,40,000/- with 10.5% interest per annum. The complainant is also agreed to pay 2% penal interest in case of default in payment. The complainant defaulted the repayment and as per account Rs.1,21,434/- is due which includes interest debited up to 31.12.2014 besides further interest. On 14.07.2009 the complainant executed letter of acknowledgment admitting liability and on 16.05.2012 also. The short term production loans are dealt within paragraph 3.2 of the scheme and the investment loan are dealt within paragraph 3.3 of the scheme. Paragraph 3.2 of the scheme deals with working capital loan for traditional and non traditional plantations and horticulture. The overdue amount in working capital loan as on 31st December 2007 qualified for debt waiver or debt relief subject to the condition that amount is limited to Rs.1 lakh. If the working capital loan is excess of Rs.1 lakh, debt waiver or debt relief will not apply to any amount in excess of 1 lakh. The complainant is not entitled for more than 1 lakh and for the balance amount of Rs.1,22,366/- the opposite party filed suit before the Munsiff Court, Sulthan Bathery as OS.40/2015. The complainant is also liable to pay Rs.4,17,240/- as per OS 46/2015. Then only the complainant can get back the documents. Therefore, the opposite party is legaly entitled to keep the records of the complainant who is capable of repayment of all dues. So there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and doucments the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party in
not returning the pledged documents of the complaint?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to A3 and called for documents are marked as Ext.X1 series. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit and the opposite party is examined as OPW1 and documents are marked as Ext.B1 to B5. The Ext.A1 document is the Savings Bank pass book of the complainant. The Ext.A2 document is the copy of Agricultural Debt Waiver and debt relief scheme 2008. Ext.A3 document is the Circular No.1/08 issued by NABARD. The Ext.X1 series documents are the loan Account details of one Vinod. M. K, which is called for on an application filed by the complainant. The Ext.B1 is the clarification to the scheme 2008 issued by the Chief General Manager in charge of opposite party Bank. The Ext.B2 and B3 documents are the copy of decrees passed by the Honorable Munsiff Court, Sulthan Bathery against the complainant in O.S.40/2015 and O.S.46/2015 pertaining to the loan due. The Ext.B4 document is the Loan Application given by the complainant to the opposite party bank on 01.09.2016. The Ext.B5 document is the Memorandum of Agreement for agricultural loans. The Ext.B4 document is the application of the complainant in which the details of loan is stated as short term loan for cultivating coffee, pepper, arecanut and rubber. The total extent of property shown in the application is 2 acres and 63 ½ cents. The Ext.B4 document is signed by the complainant and the complainant admitted the document in evidence. The Ext.A2 document is the copy of Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme 2008. As per Clasue 3.2 of the scheme, it deals with short term production loan which is given in connection with the raising of crops which is to be repaid within 18 months. It will include working capital loan not exceeding Rs.1 lakh for traditional or non-traditional and horticulture. As per clause 3.6 of the scheme, a small farmer means a farmer cultivating agricultural land of more than 1 hectre and up to 2 hectres. Here in this case, the complainant is having 2.63 ½ cents of property and he comes under the category of small farmer. Direct agricultural loan taken under a Kisan Credit card would also be covered under this scheme subject to the guidelines. The Ext.B1 document clarification issued by Government of India in response to the queries received from various lending institutions in this regard. In Ext.B1 as per the queries No.18, the government gave clarification to the scheduled commercial banks such as working capital loan as stated in Paragraph 3.2 of the scheme deals with working capital loan for traditional and non-traditional plantations and horticulture. In such cases, the working capital loan account could become an irregular account and some amount may have become overdue as on December 31, 2007. That overdue amount of working capital loan qualifies for debt waiver or debt relief subject to the condition that the amount is limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. If the working capital loan is in excess of Rs.1,00,000/- debt waiver or debt relief will not apply to any amount in excess of Rs.1 lakh. When a clarification is issued by the Government as per Ext.B1 in the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, the Forum cannot ignore the same. As per scheme, the eligible amount in case of a short-term production loan, the amount of such loan (together with applicable interest) disbursed upto March 31, 2007 and over due as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008. Bus as per Ext.B4 application the loan purpose is shown as working capital loan for the purpose of coffee, pepper, arecanut and rubber. The loan is not production loan because coffee, pepper, arecanut and rubber cannot be produced and yield income within a period of one year or 18 months. Hence the loan availed by the complainant is a short-term working capital loan which is to be repaid within 18 months will include working capital loan not exceeding 1 lakh for traditional and non-traditional plantations and horticulture. The opposite party bank gave the benefit of waiver to the complainant up to 1 lakh and interest up to December 31, 2007. The complainant is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,22,366/- for which the opposite party filed suit. The Ext.B2 and Ext.B3 are the Decree copy of Munsiff Court, Sulthan Bathery. In the suit, the complainant herein is ex-parte. The suit is tried by a competent Civil Court and the defendant/plaintiff without appearing and contesting the case there becomes ex-parte. The defendant could have raised the contention of debt waiver relief in the suit. But the defendant remained ex-parte. The complainant approached the Forum alleging deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. The Ext.X1 series documents are not in connection with this case because the loan availed by one Vinod is not a working capital loan. Since the complainant availed debt waiver relief in his loan account as per guidelines, the complainant is liable to pay the balance due amount remains unpaid in his loan account and till the payment he is not entitled to get back the documents pledged by him. The Forum found that there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the complainant, he is not entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed, No Order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of February 2016.
Date of Filing:30.12.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Balakrishnan. Complainant.
PW2. Vinod. Agriculture.
PW3. Elias. K. Senior Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank,
Sulthan Bathery Branch.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. George Thomas. Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank,
Kenichira Branch.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Savings Bank Pass book.
A2. Copy of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008.
A3. Circular issued by NABARD.
X1(Series). Loan Account Details.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Copy of Clarification of the Scheme.
B2. Copy of Decree. Dt:30.05.2015.
B3. Copy of Decree. Dt:28.07.2015.
B4. Copy of Loan Application.
B5. Copy of Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural Loans.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
