O R D E R

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I):

Complainant’s filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 

2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:- Complainant’s case is that they have availed Agricultural Gold Loan from the State Bank Of India, Kalleli Branch for Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs respectively on 22.05.2012 and before 1 year period from the date of sanction of the loan, i.e. on 21.05.2013 when they approached the bank for renewing the said loan the 4^th opposite party informed them that they have to remit 7%  interest only for renewing the same.  As per the same they had remitted Rs.14,000/- and Rs.21,000/- respectively for renewing the said Agricultural Gold Loan which was endorsed in the Gold Loan token.  The 4^th opposite party further informed them that the subsidy interest of 3% will be credited in their respective accounts in the month of March.  But after 4 months from the date of renewal, bank sent notice to the complainant’s demanding to close the Gold Loan.  Complainant sent reply notice to the bank.

3. The 1^st complainant availed another Agricultural Gold Loan on 04.08.2012 when he approached the bank for renewal of his loan 0n 31.07.2013 the bank authorities informed him to remit the interest alone to renew his loan and he remitted Rs.21,000/-.  Thereafter in the month of October the bank sent a notice to him demanding to close the loan account.

4. Complainant had prior experience in the same bank that he had to remit more amounts because of the change in the period of loan.  So he approached the bank before the expiry of the period of loan.  The policy of the bank is that this type of regular payment is treated as a part time payment, and the maximum limit of Agricultural Gold Loan is Rs.1 lakh.  This policy cannot be admissible.  It is the hidden agenda of the bank to connect more interest which is a deficiency in service towards the customers.  For the renewal of loan or for remitting the interest, the same amount is to be remitted and the stand taken by the bank is meaningless.  Complainant informed the above said matter to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party and they have justified the acts of the bank.

5. Complainant’s preferred a complaint before the banking Ombudsman after issuing notice to the bank and the same was closed with a direction to prefer a complaint before the Forum.  The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainants.  Hence this complaint for directing the opposite parties to collect only 7% interest for the loan and to take necessary action for getting the subsidy and also for directing the opposite parties to collect any other charges from the complainants.  The complainants also seek a relief of awarding Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by them. 

6. In this case, opposite parties entered appearance and filed joint version with the following contentions.

7. Complainant in this case is well aware of the terms and conditions of Agricultural Gold Loan because he had availed Agricultural Gold Loan previously also.  Agricultural Gold Loans are sanctioned for a maximum amount of Rs.3 lakhs to a farmer for one year at the rate of 7% interest and 3% subsidy is payable to a farmer on repayment and closing of crop loan fully within the time specified.  The benevolent provisions of subsidy of 3% is only for poor farmers engaged in farming activities.  The benefit of subsidy will not accrue to those farmers who fail to repay the loan in full, within 1 year of availing of such loan.  From the records maintained with the bank, it is revealed that the complainant’s have availed different amounts of loans on different dates.  Since the Agricultural Gold Loan is not closed within the time period of 1 year, they are not entitled for subsidy of 3% and hence the bank is not in a position to grant subsidy to them.

8. 1^st complainant in this case is running a private financing firm and to improve his money lending business he usually avails loan at the lowest rate of interest.  Regarding the Agricultural Gold Loan, there is nothing like renewal of an Agricultural Gold Loan on payment of interest unless the full loan is closed and a fresh loan is applied by the individual concerned, which will be considered as a fresh loan and not a renewal of existing loan. 

9. The allegation that some adverse experience from the bank is not known to the opposite parties.  When the matter is taken up before opposite parties 1 to 3 they enquired the matter promptly and tried to convince the complainants.  But he is not turned up.  Apart from the above, for closing a loan the borrower himself must be present at the branch in order to identify the gold ornaments and to receive them back under acknowledgement.  In this case, 3^rd complainant never come to the branch but some one else has deposited the interest in her loan account.  Thus it is clear that their intention was only to make part payment.  Regarding the Agricultural Gold Loan scheme details and related matters, Mr. Pradeep Kumar had put an application under Right to Information Act and other letters which were replied.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.  With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint is allowable or not?

11. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A2 series and Ext.B1 and B2 series.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

       12. The point:- Complainants allegation is that they have availed an Agricultural Gold Loan from SBT, Kalleli Branch.  Before one year period from the date of sanction they approached the bank for renewing the said loan, then the 4^th opposite party informed them that they have to remit 7% interest for renewing the said loan.  As per the same they had remitted Rs.14,000/- and Rs.21,000/- respectively for renewing the said Agricultural Gold Loan which was endorsed in the gold loan token.  4^th opposite party further informed them that the subsidy interest of 3% will be credited in their respective accounts in the month of March.  But after 4 months from the date of renewal, bank sent a registered notice to them demanding to close the gold loan.  Complainant sent reply notice to the opposite parties.  The above said act of the opposite party is a deficiency in service towards the customers for which they are liable to the complainants.

                 13. In order to prove the complainants case, 1^st complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced by him were marked as Ext.A1 to A2 series.  Ext.A1 is the photo copy of Agricultural Gold Loan pledge token dated 04.08.2012.  Ext.A1(a) is the photocopy of   gold loan token dated 22.05.2013  in the name of 2^nd complainant.  Ext.A1(b) is the photocopy of   gold loan token dated 22.05.2013  in the name of 3^rd complainant.  Ext.A2 is the photo copy of the registered notice issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the 2^nd complainant.  Ext.A2(a) is the photo copy of the registered notice issued by the 3^rd opposite part to the 3^rd complainant.  Ext.A2(b) is the original of registered notice issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the 1^st complainant. 

       14. On the other hand, opposite parties contention is that complainant is well aware about the Agricultural Gold Loan scheme because he had availed the same previously also.  In Agricultural Gold Loan, maximum loan amount is Rs.3 lakhs for a maximum period of 1 year at the rate of 7% interest per annum 3%, subsidy is payable to a farmer on repayment and closing of loan fully within the time specified.  The benevolent provisions of subsidy of 3% is only for poor farmers engaged in farming activities.  Complainant in this case is running a private financing firm and for improving his money lending business he is availing such loan.  The benefit of subsidy will not accrue to those farmers who fails to repay the loan in full, within 1 year.  From the records maintained with the bank, it is revealed that the complainants have availed different amounts of loan on different dates.  Since the Agricultural Gold Loan is not closed within the period of 1year, they are not entitled for subsidy of 3% and hence the bank is not in a position to grant subsidy to these complainants.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.

                 15. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, 4^th opposite party filed proof affidavit along with 2 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 series and Ext.B2.  Ext.B1 is the gold loan application submitted by the complainant on 04.08.2012.  Ext.B2 is the Agricultural Circular No.2/12 dated 20.01.2012. B2(a) is the Agricultural Circular No.22/12 dated 21.12.2012.  B2(b) is the Agricultural Circular No.5/12 dated 05.02.2013.

                 16. On the basis of the contention and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the sanctioning of loan and its term.  The only dispute is with regard to the interest rate and its subsidy.  According to the complainants, he had availed agricultural gold loan and before 1 year period he renew the loan by paying 7% interest and opposite parties informed him that the subsidy will be credited in their respective accounts.  But after 4 months from the date of renewal bank sent notice to them demanding to close the loan.  According to the opposite parties, complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the said scheme.  7% interest per annum and 3% subsidy is payable to farmers on repayment and closing of crop loan fully within the time specified.  But the complainants has not paid the principal amount on closed the loan.  So they are not entitled to get the benefit of the said scheme.

                 17. On going through the evidence adduced by the complainant, it can be seen that there are 3 complainants in the complaint and 1^st complainant was examined and he deposed before the Forum that 2^nd complainant is his brother and 3^rd complainant is his wife.  They had also availed the said loan for agricultural purpose and as per the general terms as well as the guide lines the agricultural loans are sanctioned for 1year to an Agriculturer.  As per the terms and conditions of Agricultural Gold Loan, the loan has to be repaid within 1 year.  The subsidy is payable only to an agriculturist who repays the loan promptly within the period of 1 year.

                 18. On a perusal of the entire evidence adduced before the Forum, by the complainant it can be seen that the complainants who are close relatives from one family and availed Agricultural Gold Loan from the bank at a lowest rate of interest.  Even through the complainants availed Agricultural Gold Loan, in the complaint they had failed to mention the name of  crops in the application form Ext.B2 the column of the crop were kept as blank.  Opposite parties contention is that 1^st complainant taken this loans for improving his money lending business.  Complainant in his cross examination it is admitted by deposing as follows:- “സ്വര്ണ്ണ പണയത്തിന്മേല് വായ്പ നല്കുന്ന ജോലിയാണ് എനിക്ക്.....ഞാന് 8.4% to 16% interest ലാണ് loan നല്കുന്നത്. ഞാനും കൃഷി വായിപ നല്കാറുണ്ട്”. He admitted that he is running a private finance institution and he is giving loan to agricultural purpose also.  From this deposition it is clear that he is availing such loans with lowest rate of interest for lending at a higher rate of interest to his customers.  A man running such a finance business having sufficient means is not expected to avail Agricultural Gold Loan facility for farming.  We are of the view that government is providing these huge funds for the protection of agriculture and poor farmers.  Such type of misuse is to be stopped and no one will be permitted to get undue benefit from government schemes introduced for the benefits of genuine parties.  It is the duty of the bank to verify whether the amount paid by them under this scheme is utilizing for the real purpose.  In this case we feels that the bank had committed grave dereliction in this matter so they are not entitled to raise an allegation that the complainant had misused the loan amount.  In this case the complainant stated that he had remitted the full interest within the expiry period of the loan.  The real question to be considered is whether an Agricultural Gold Loan can be renewed simply paying the interest as claimed by the complainant.  On going through the Ext.B1(a) and B2 series documents we are of the view that the beneficiary should be an Agriculturist and crop loan is to be repaid fully with interest within the stipulated period is only eligible for interest subsidy.  The farmer cannot renew the crop loan only by paying interest and here the complainant remitted only interest without paying the principal amount before the stipulated period.  Therefore, he cannot claim the interest subsidy.  So the amount paid by the complainant in his loan account is to be treated as a part payment.  Moreover the complainant is not entitled to say that he is not aware of the terms and conditions of Agricultural Gold Loan as he is not an illiterate and had previous experience in taking Agricultural Gold Loan and also in the light of Ext.B1 which is signed by the complainant.  Complainant has not adduced any evidence before the Forum for proving that payment of interest alone is sufficient for closing Agricultural Gold Loan and renewing an Agricultural Gold Loan.  Therefore we cannot find any deficiency in service from opposite parties and hence we find that this complaint is not allowable.

                 19. In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

                 Declared in the Open Forum on this the 4^th day of November, 2014.

                                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                                                      K.P.Padmasree,                                                                                   (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)         :    (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)            :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :  Pradeep Kumar. V

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1    :  Photo copy of Agricultural Gold Loan pledge token

           Dated 04.08.2012. 

A1(a) :  Photocopy of   gold loan token dated 22.05.2013  in the  

            name of 2^nd complainant. 

A1(b) :  Photocopy of   gold loan token dated 22.05.2013  in the  

            name of 3^rd complainant. 

A2 :  Photo copy of the registered notice issued by the 3^rd opposite  

        party to the 2^nd complainant. 

A2(a) :  Photo copy of the registered notice issued by the 3^rd  

            opposite party to the 3^rd complainant. 

A2(b) :  Original of registered notice issued by the 3^rd opposite party  

            to the 1^st complainant. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Manoj. S.L

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Gold loan application submitted by the complainant on  

        04.08.2012.

B2 : Agricultural Circular No.2/12 dated 20.01.2012. 

B2(a) :  Agricultural Circular No.22/12 dated 21.12.2012.

B2(b) :  Agricultural Circular No.5/12 dated 05.02.2013.

                                                                                       (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Pradeep Kumar, Thadathil Veedu, Kadammanitta.P.O.,

           Pin – 689 649.

           (2) Aparnna.K.A, Karthikamangalam,

                    Aruvappulam.P.O., Konni – 689 691.                                                (3) Deputy General Manager, SBT Zonal Office,

            Kottayam.

1.  Manager/Asst. Manager, SBT Zonal Office,

           Pathanamthitta – 689 645.

1.  Manager, SBT, Kalleli, Konni – 689 691.
2.  Cashier (Manoj.S.L), SBT, Kalleli,

           Konni – 689 691.

      (7) The Stock File.