BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 228 of 2016
Date of Institution : 8.9.2016
Date of Decision : 25.10.2017.
Sandeep Kumar aged about 51 years son of Shri Raj Baksh, resident of village Mallekan C/o Babber Bhawan, Bahher Street, Mallekan, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Mallekan Branch, Sirsa.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sunny Babbar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant had got opened a KCC account bearing No.1169008800005954 in the op bank in the year 2008 and a passbook in this regard was also issued to the complainant by the officials of the bank. At that time the land of the complainant situated at village Mallekan was mortgaged with the op bank as security and all the documents in this regard were got signed by the op bank from the complainant. That thereafter as per the statements of the account of the complainant, a total sum of Rs.67,000/- was due against the complainant and the bank authorities approached the complainant and made him aware about the scheme issued by the Centre Government namely Agriculture Debit Waiver and Debit Relief Scheme, 2008 vide which it was informed to the complainant that a total sum of Rs.67,000/- is due against the complainant but as per the said scheme, the complainant being the consumer of the op bank was to pay only a sum of Rs.47000/- and the remaining sum of Rs.20000/- was exempted to be paid. It was further informed by the op bank to the complainant that after the payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.47000/-, his account shall be cleared and no money will be remained due against the complainant. It was promised by the bank authorities that the land of the complainant shall also be released from the mortgage. It is further averred that being interested and impressed with the said scheme and also believing upon the promise of the op bank, the complainant immediately deposited a sum of Rs.47,000/- to the account of the op bank and after the payment of such amount nothing remained due against the complainant and the account was cleared. That thereafter the op bank in order to take undue advantage of the scheme issued by the Centre Government opened a further account bearing no.1169008800002160 in the name of the complainant without the consent and permission of the complainant. The complainant was never informed about the opening of said account in the name of complainant. It is further averred that after opening the aforesaid second account in the name of complainant, the op bank kept on making false entries in the passbook issued in the name of complainant and now about a year ago the op bank has claimed a sum of Rs.52,205/- from the complainant with the threat that in case the said amount is not deposited by the complainant, the recovery of the same shall be effected by way of auction of his mortgaged land. It is further averred that complainant was surprised to know about the pendency of this amount because he has already cleared his account with the bank and never opened any such further account with the op bank. That immediately after coming to know about this fact, the complainant contacted the op bank and requested to withdraw the claim of Rs.52205/- but the op bank kept on pressurizing the complainant to deposit the same otherwise his mortgaged land shall be auctioned. It is further averred that forced with the circumstances and finding no other way and in order to save his property from auction, the complainant under protest deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs.52,205/- with the op bank against proper receipt. The complainant had also obtained clearance from the op bank and on the basis of the same he got his land redeemed. It is further averred that in this manner, the op bank by way of opening a further account without the consent and permission of the complainant has misused the same and thereafter got deposited a sum of Rs.52,205/- from complainant forcibly and illegally whereas op bank has got no legal right and authority to recover any such amount from the complainant. That all the efforts made by complainant remained futile, therefore, the complainant finding no other alternative moved an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 vide which he claimed the information regarding the account statements of aforesaid account but intentionally and deliberately op did not supply any such information to the complainant and as such not only violated the mandatory provisions of law but also has violated the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The complainant kept on visiting the office of op and kept on requesting to refund the aforesaid amount but op has refused to make payment of the same. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per record of the op bank, the complainant is K.C.C. Account holder of the bank since 16.9.2003. His KCC Account No. was 216. After computerization of this branch of the bank, new account number was given to the complainant as 1169008800002160 and his KCC limit was for Rs.one lac. It is further submitted that as per Central Government Agriculture debt waiver and Debt Relief scheme, 2008 a person who has obtained loan from the bank prior to 31.3.2007 and the said loan remained overdue as on 31.12.2007 and remained unpaid till 29.2.2008 was entitled for benefit of debt relief in such scheme. The complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the op bank out of his KCC Account on 13.10.2005 hence total outstanding amount against the complainant comes to Rs.86,427/- up to 31.3.2007 and he deposited Rs.46,000/- on 5.6.2007. He has deposited the amount prior to 31.12.2007. In this way account of complainant was not overdue on 31.12.2007. Hence, the complainant was not covered under the above said scheme. However, the officials of the op bank tried to get relief for the complainant on the request of the complainant but due to non covering in the above said scheme, he was not found entitled to get any benefit under the said scheme. It is further submitted that para no.5 of the complaint is correct regarding the deposit of Rs.46,000/- by the complainant but the same was part payment against the outstanding amount of Rs.86,427/- and complainant has deposited the said amount with his own sweet will. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs.52205/- was outstanding in the account of complainant and he paid the same on 22.8.2015 with his own sweet will and without any pressure upon him admitting it as correct. If the staff of the Bank has not provided the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, then the complainant has further remedy under the said Act. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of account ledger Ex.C1, Ex.C2, copy of transfer voucher Ex.C3, copy regarding transfer of amount of Rs.20,000/- Ex.C4. On the other hand, op produced affidavit of Sh. Mangat Ram Kumar, Branch Manager Ex.R1, copy of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 Ex.R2 and copy of ledger Ex.R3 and copy of account ledger inquiry Ex.R4.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully and Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (ADW&DR Scheme 2008) viz.a.viz. guidelines for implementation of the scheme as contained in Punjab National Bank, PS&LB Division, Agriculture Cell HO New Delhi Circular No.PSLB/ Farm Credit 29/2008 dated 29.5.2008 based on RBI letter No.RPCD. No.PLFS.BC.72/05.04.02/2007-08 dated 23.5.2008.
5. Before we discuss the case of the complainant, it will be justified to discuss the guidelines of the said scheme which covers certain categories of farmers and certain types of agricultural loans. Clause 3 of the said scheme states that the scheme was applicable to marginal, small and other farmers in respect of direct agricultural loans i.e. short term production loans and investment loans provided directly to the farmers for agricultural purposes in addition to other categories of borrowers. Short term loan means a loan given in connection with raising of crops which is to be repaid within 18 months. Kisan Credit card scheme formulated by Punjab National Bank falls within the ambit of short term production loans. Clause 3.5 of said circular lays down that ‘Marginal Farmer’ means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land up to 1 hectare (2.5 acres), Clause 3.6 lays down that ‘Small Farmer’ means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and up to 2 hectares (5 acres). Further Clause 3.7 of the said circular/ scheme states that ‘Other Farmer’ means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 2 hectares (more than 5 acres). The scheme was to be implemented as per the classification of eligible farmers as per above stated land holding criteria under the scheme which was based on the fact of the total extent of land owned by the farmer either singly or as joint holder (in the case of an owner-farmer). Under the head Explanation under clause 3.7 sub clause 4 it is laid down that direct agricultural loan taken under a Kisan Credit Card would also be covered under the scheme subject to the guidelines. The scheme specifically lays down guidelines for arriving at eligible amount for the purpose of granting debt waiver/ debt relief. Clause 4.1 states that the amount as eligible for debt waiver or debt relief, as the case may be shall comprise of (a) in the case of a short term production loan, the amount of such loan (together with applicable interest) as disbursed upto March 31, 2007 and overdue as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008.
6. Further, extent of relief which was to be provided to the eligible farmer has to be arrived at as per the procedure laid down in the scheme. Clause 6.1 states that in the case of ‘other farmer’s one time settlement (OTS) rebate of 25% of eligible amount will be given subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of 75% of the eligible amount. This scheme was to be implemented as per the schedule specified in the guidelines. Clause 7.3 reads that “A farmer classified as ‘other farmer’ eligible for OTS relief shall give an undertaking agreeing to pay his share (that is eligible amount minus the amount of OTS relief) in not more than three installments and the first two installments shall be for an amount not less than one third of his share. The last dates of payment in the case of three installments will be September 30, 2008, March 31, 2009 and June 30, 2009. Clause 8 of the said scheme states that no interest on eligible amount after 29.2.2008 was to be levied and in case of other farmers who defaults in paying his share of the eligible amount on or before June 30, 2009 and becomes ineligible for OTS relief, the branch may charge interest for the period after June 30, 2009.
7. Coming to the case of complainant Sandeep Kumar, we have observed that he was sanctioned a limit of Rs.1,00,000/- on 16.9.2003 under KCC facility under the category of short term production loan which was subject to annual repayment and renewal of the same. Till 6th May, 2005, the account of the complainant was running regular and outstanding balance in his KCC account was Rs.298 (credit). After this date, he was allowed withdrawal as per his eligibility and as per ledger (Ex.R4), the latest withdrawal was Rs.50,000/- on 13.10.2005. Outstanding debt balance in his KCC account on this date was Rs.75,777/- and by levy of periodical interest, the outstanding in this account comes to Rs.86,427/- as on 30.3.2007. The perusal of ledger sheet (Ex.R3) reveals that the account was not renewed after 13.10.2005 on next due date or thereafter and whole of the amount of Rs.86,427/- was overdue. As per laid down guidelines of the scheme, the farmer was to be categorized under the category of the ‘other farmer’ keeping in view his land holding which has been stated as 170 Kanals under the column no.6 of his application for agricultural credit. He was eligible under the category of ‘other farmer’ for debt waiver/ relief as per the guidelines of the scheme as the amount was disbursed to the farmer well before 31.3.2007 and Rs.86427/- was fully overdue as on 31.12.2007.
8. The perusal of the statement of account of KCC No.216 (new account No.1169008800002160) reveals that a sum of Rs.46,000/- was deposited by the farmer towards the recovery in the said KCC account on 5.6.2007 after efforts of the bank officials for recovery of bad debt and remaining amount of Rs.40,579/- including Rs.112/- as other charges remained overdue on 31.12.2007 which remained unpaid as on 29.2.2008. As per the scheme, farmer was eligible to the extent of 25% as debt relief/ waiver of the outstanding i.e. Rs.40,579/- which amounts to Rs.10,144/-. The complainant/ farmer was to deposit his share of OTS amounting upto 75% of the eligible amount i.e. Rs.30,435/- in three equal installments by due dates i.e. Rs.10145/- each by September 30, 2008, March 31, 2009 and June 30, 2009 respectively. A perusal of the statement of account of the farmer (Ex.R3) reveals that the farmer deposited Rs.20,000/- on 20.5.2008 and Rs.7000/- on 30.4.2009 i.e. total amounting to Rs.27,000/- against Rs.20,290/- well before the due date for two installments. But before the due date for deposit of remaining part amount of Rs.3435/- being third installment as his share of OTS, the bank officials committed blunder by crediting a sum of Rs.45,861/- on 12.7.2008 as debt waiver to which farmer was never eligible. Had the bank officials strictly followed the laid down guidelines under the scheme, the farmer could have been given the due debt waiver as per his eligibility. We would also like to mention here that complainant has not explained the above said factual position in his complaint and has explained the said factual position to some extent only in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A. Further, Sh. Mangat Ram Kumar, the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, branch Mallekan has claimed in his affidavit Ex.R1 that the officials of the op bank tried to get relief for the complainant on the request of the complainant but due to non covering in the above said scheme, he was not found entitled to get any benefit under the said scheme. But we do not agree with this claim of the Branch Manager as the benefit of waiver under the scheme was made available to the eligible farmers only as per scheme and there was no scope of any try at the discretion of bank officials. At that time, the need on the part of bank officials was to strictly follow the guidelines of the AWD&DR scheme which they failed and put the farmer to suffering. In view of our above discussion and averments made by respective counsel and Bank Manager as well as by farmer/ complainant Sandeep Kumar in person, we are of the considered opinion that the eligible amount (excluding interest) for consideration for debt waiver/ debt relief is Rs.40,579/- as it was overdue and remained unpaid till the cut date. Thus, the farmer is eligible for a debt waiver of Rs.10,144/- being 25% of the eligible amount and a sum of Rs.3435/- which could not be deposited/ recovered from the farmer due to the said blunder stated above is to be recovered before allowing the benefit of the debt waiver. However, we see no substance in the contention of the complainant that bank has wrongly opened further account in the name of complainant because another account was to be opened by the bank for the purpose of passing on benefit of debt waiver and there was no wrong in the opening of the said account by the bank officials.
9. In view of above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to enact afresh statement of account as per guidelines of the scheme and pass on the debt relief benefit to the farmer as stated above within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount of Rs.52,205/- recovered by the bank unauthorisedly may be refunded to the farmer/ complainant as per his eligibility after allowing debt waiver/ debt relief making recovery of the processing charges, inspection charges, if any, interest and other charges on account of disbursement of Rs.25,000/- on 1.9.2009 and other disbursements, if any made to the farmer. The Bank is further directed to refund the net arrived at amount within next 15 days and issue a certificate of debt waiver alongwith copy of enacted statement of account to the farmer after doing the needful, failing which the bank will be liable to pay interest @11.5% per annum to the complainant. We also direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:25.10.2017. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
