JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant had availed credit facility from the respondent Punjab National Bank.  The loan account of the complainant was classified as NPA, on account of default in servicing the said loan account.  On 11.9.2008, Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 was announced by the Government.  According to the complainant, he was entitled to debt waiver, in terms of the said scheme, since the area of the land cultivated by him was 44 kanals as against the limit of 50 kanals, for that waiver.  According to the complainant, he was also informed that the debt in his Krishi Card Account had been waived.  However, vide letter dated 03.7.2009, he was informed that the Circle Head of the bank had rejected his eligibility for debt waiver on the ground that his land holding was 72 kanals, much more than the eligibility limit of 50 kanals.  Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking No Dues Certificate, along with damages.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent Bank, which alleged that the bank had pointed out the discrepancies regarding the correctness of the agricultural claim in respect of 745 accounts maintained by it, on the basis of sample checking / audit.  It was also alleged that the complainant had given false details of his land holding to the bank in Form 1A dated 16.6.2008.  This is also the case of the respondent that the land holding of the complainant was 7.23 acres, whereas the land holding given by him in Form 1A was 4.4 acres.

3.      The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 

4.      A perusal of the letter dated 03.7.2009 issued by the Bank would show that the complainant was not eligible for debt waiver as the land owned by him was more than 2 hectares (50 kanals).  The aforesaid letter was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 16.7.2009 and he was informed that he was not eligible under that waiver scheme.  He was informed that he was eligible under debt relief scheme, for which he was required to deposit 75% of the eligible outstanding in the account to take benefit of the relief of 25%.  The stand taken by the bank however, was not acceptable to the complainant, as is evident from his letter dated August 22, 2009, addressed to the Branch Manager. 

5.      Since the claim for debt waiver was rejected by the bank and the rejection was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 16.7.2009, the consumer complaint ought to have been filed within two years thereof, the period of limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, being two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action.  The cause of action to challenge the decision of the bank accrued to the complainant when he received the letter dated 16.7.2009.  The representations made by him thereafter, would not extend the period of limitation.  The consumer complaint however, was instituted in the year 2016.  The complaint therefore, was hopelessly barred by limitation on the date it was instituted.

6.      On merits also, a perusal of the scheme would show that as per the explanation 1 below Clause 3.7, the classification of eligible farmers as per the land holding criteria under the scheme would be based on the total extent of land owned by the farmer either singly or joint holding in the case of an owner farmer.  Admittedly, the land owned by the complainant was more than 50 kanals though he claims that the land under cultivation was less than 50 kanals.  Since the total extent of the land owned by him was more than 50 kanals, he was to be classified as other farmer and not as a small farmer.  Therefore, he was not entitled to debt waiver.  The aforesaid position is also clarified in the document filed by the complainant and available on page 92 of the paper book, where it is written that the status is determined on the basis of the agricultural land in possession of the farmer and hence all the land in the possession of the farmer as owner or tenant or share cropper should be taken in account for determining whether he is a marginal, small or other farmer.  Therefore, the bank was right in classifying the complainant as ‘other farmer’, who was not eligible for any waiver of the debt.

7.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the view taken by the fora below does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.   The revision petition, being devoid of any merits is hereby, dismissed, with no order as to costs.