Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/582/2012

BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. GOVINDARAJAN - Opp.Party(s)

T.C.A. SRINIVASAN

08 Jul 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :   THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                      TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                               MEMBER                                                                                  

F.A.NO.582/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.73/2010, dated 11.10.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Nagapattinam)

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF JULY 2015

1.  Branch Manager,

     Canara Bank,

     Kariapattinam Branch,                                      M/s.TCA Srinivasan

     Kariapattinam.                                    Counsel for Appellants / Opposite parties

2.  Divisional Manager,

     Canara Bank,

     Royal Road, Trichy.

-vs-

R.Govindarajan,

S/o. Ramalingam Pillai,                                             M/s.K.M.Subramaniam

Vadamazhai Village,                                     Counsel for Respondent/Complainant

Vedaranyam Taluk,

Nagapattinam.

          The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief.  The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellants / opposite parties filed this appeal praying for to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.73/2010, dated 11.10.2011.

              This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.06.2015, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The opposite parties are the appellants.

2.       The complainant having availed agricultural loans from the 1^st opposite party during the year 2006 and 2007 for which certain reliefs are announced by the Government under FDRS 2008 which is applicable for certain categories of agriculturist as classified under the Scheme and for the defaulter before this announcement of the scheme under which the complainant claiming for refund of Rs.18,000/- which was paid by him on compulsion on 27.1.2009 and subsequently the opposite parties denied the benefits under the relief and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming for direction to issue necessary certificates declared wiping out the loan and also to refund a sum of Rs.18,000/- and also to pay a sum of 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and for costs.

3.       The opposite parties denied the allegations of the complaint in their written version and the complainant without filing any documents to claim the relief under the scheme FDRS 2008 to prove that he is a small farmer or as otherwise farmer and since the Government has determined how to give the reliefs for the scheme under Clause-4 under which the loan granted upto to 31.3.2007 and the loans which have not paid as defaulter from 31.12.2007 till 29.8.2008.  As per the details of the complainant the loan application he was owing 1.53 acres as his own land and as per oral lease 8.50 acres in which having coconut trees in 3.5 acres and under the same he has availed 3 types loans which are repayable for various period with various leave period and interest rates and those who have not settled the share of the dues on 30.6.2009, there is no one time settlement benefits and the complainant has not entitled for any relief under  the scheme as he was already given in one loan.  25% of the benefits and no compulsion was made for payment of Rs.18,000/-towards loan payment and having more than  the land prescribed for the benefits not entitled for the same and thereby the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.       On the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.18,000/- with 6% interest and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency and mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.2000/-.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite parties have filed this appeal contended that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without taking into consideration of the documents relied upon by the appellant under Ex.B6 to B10 and the complainant failed to produce certificate from the VAO to show that he is having only 1.53 acres as cultivable land and to prove that he is a small farmer coming under the benefits of this scheme and not as other former or medium former under the scheme and as per the details given by them while availing loan, he was having 1.53 acres as his own land and 5.23 acres as cultivating as a tenant and thereby owning 8.50 acres more than 2 hectares and not coming under the scheme considered as other farmer and hence the appeal is to be allowed.

6.       We have heard both sides contentions and perused the written submission and other materials in this regard.  The complainant contended that he had availed certain agricultural land for which the government announced some reliefs under the FDRS 2008 subject to terms and conditions among which to get the entire reliefs on the date of the  scheme  commenced the beneficiary must have defaulter in repaying the loan and should not have paid entire amount or settled the loan earlier. Whereas even though the complainant contended that he was compulsorily made to pay Rs.18,000/- for the purpose and no relief was given the appellants / opposite parties contended that for the purpose of getting relief, the claimant must be a small farmer having only less than 2 hectares of lands as ownership or cultivable.  But in this case the complainant was considered as other former having more than 5 acres as per his own statement in the loan application given while availing various loans for which they relied upon Ex.B8 to B10 which was not considered by the District Forum.  Further the complainant has not produced any VAO certificates to show that he was having only below 5 acres of land to consider him as a small farmer.  On perusal of the complainant’s record he had not produced any revenue records.  But Ex.B1 and B2 are Chitta and Adangal reveals that he was having more than 5 acres as claimed by him.  Also the appellants have relied upon Ex.B8 to B10 and on perusal of the same the complainant apart from having 1.53 acres of land in which coconut trees are there, further having in all 8.50 acres as other cultivable land as a tenant taken from one Natarajan, Ramalingam, Govindarajan, Sivanantham, Vedarathinam and also after considering the possession of the same the 1^st opposite party rejected the relief since the complainant was having more than 5 acres of land coming under the category of other farmers who are not entitled for the reliefs and also relied upon revenue records under Ex.B1 and B2 to show that he was having cultivable lease lands in the name of Govindarajan and Ramalingam pillai.  Further the complainant contended that without informing or without his knowledge those details of other cultivable lands to the extent  of 5.23 acres were included in the loan application  form  and they are  not  actually owned or cultivable by him and these contentions cannot be accepted as it was an afterthought one and no way intimated to the bank subsequently after obtaining RTI details under Ex.A12 and thereby the District Forum failed to taken into consideration of over all aspects of the claim and erroneously allowed the complaint which is liable to be reversed in view of the foregoing discussions and reasons stated and accordingly

          In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District forum passed in CC.No. 73/2010, dated 11.10.2011.

          No order as to costs in the appeal.

          Registry is directed to refund the mandatory deposit with accrued interest in favour of the appellants/ opposite parties duly discharged.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                        A.K.ANNAMALAI

   MEMBER                                                     PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

INDEX; YES / NO

VL/D;/PJM/BANK