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

          The petitioner Raj Kumar and late Smt. Laxmi Devi took a loan of Rs. 3,30,000/- from Punjab National Bank for purchasing a tractor.  Smt. Laxmi Devi died on 31.05.2008.  The Government of India with a view to grant debt waiver and debt relief to certain farmers entrusted a scheme known as Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.  The scheme provided for waiver of eligible amount.  The eligible amount was defined in clause 4.1 of the scheme which reads as under:-

4.1      The amount eligible for debt waiver or debt relief, as the case may be (hereinafter referred to as the ‘eligible amount’), shall comprise of:

  a.      in the case of a short-term production loan, the amount of such loan (together with applicable interest):

            i). disbursed up to March 31, 2007 and overdue as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008;

            ii). restructured and rescheduled by banks in 2004 and in 2006 through the special packages announced by the Central Government, whether overdue or not; and

            iii). restructured and rescheduled in the normal course up to March 31, 2007 as per applicable RBI guidelines on account of natural calamities, whether overdue or not.

  b.      in the case of an investment loan, the instalments of such loan that are over due (together with applicable interest on such instalments) if the loan was:

            i). disbursed up to March 31, 2007 and overdue as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008;

            ii). restructured and rescheduled by banks in 2004 and in 2006 through the special packages announced by the Central Government; and

            iii). restructured and rescheduled in the normal course up to March 31, 2007 as per applicable RBI guidelines on account of natural calamities.”

2.      Clause 5 of the scheme provided that in the case of a small or marginal farmer, the entire “eligible amount’’ shall be waived.  In the case of ‘other farmers’ there was a one time settlement (OTS) Scheme under which the farmer was to be given a rebate of 25 percent of the ‘eligible amount’ subject to certain conditions.  The case of the petitioners is that though they are marginal farmers within the meaning of clause 3.5 of the scheme since they were cultivating agricultural land upto one hectare and were entitled to the waiver of the entire loan amount, which was payable to the Bank on the date the scheme came to be notified, the Bank has given them waiver only to the extent of Rs. 76,761/-, which was the amount overdue as on 31.12.2007.

3.      A perusal of clause 4.1 of the scheme as extracted herein above leaves no doubt that only the instalments of an investment loan which was overdue on 31.12.2007 and had remained unpaid until 29.02.2008 constituted the “eligible amount”, provided the investment loan has been disbursed upto 31.03.2007.  It is also evident from a perusal of clause 5.1 of the scheme that only the eligible amount and not the entire loan amount was to be waived under the scheme.  Admittedly the overdue amount as on 31.12.2007 was only Rs. 76,761/- and benefit for the said amount has already been given to the petitioners/complainants.  They were not entitled to the waiver of the entire loan amount, which was payable to the Bank on the date the scheme came to be notified.  Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency on the part of the Bank in rendering services to the petitioners/complainant.

4.      The learned counsel for the petitioners/complainant states that in case of certain other farmers, the entire loan amount was waived by the Bank.  As noted earlier by us, the scheme envisaged waiver of the eligible amount.  If in the case of a particular farmer the entire amount had become overdue on 31.12.2007 and had remained unpaid until 29.02.2008, payment  of that amount would be waived under the scheme, but, in a case where only part of the debt had fallen overdue as on 31.12.2007 and remained unpaid until 29.02.2008, only that part would be the eligible amount for the purpose of waiver under the scheme.

5.      The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision of Punjab & Haryana High  Court at  Chandigarh in CWP-22478-2012 decided on 18.07.2013.  We find that the main dispute before the High Court in that case was as to whether the petitioners were ‘small farmers’ or ‘other farmers’ in terms of the scheme.  The High Court was of the view that they were small farmers and not other farmers.  It is not known from the order as to whether the entire debt of the petitioners before the High Court was overdue as on 31.12.2007 or not.  However, in case before us, it is an admitted position that only a sum of Rs. 76,761/- was overdue as on 31.12.2007.  Therefore, only the said amount was eligible for waiver under the scheme.

6.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the State Commission.  The revision petition stands dismissed.