Date of filing : 18-12-2009 Date of order : 28-06-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 272/09 Dated this, the 28th day of June 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER T.Leela, D/o.Kunhambu Achari, Udayagiri, Vaniyampara House, } Complainant Ravaneeswaram.Po, Via.Pallikkara, Kasaragod.Dt. (In Person) 1. Secretary, Chithari Service Co-operative Bank, } Opposite parties No.C.45, Po.Ravaneeswaram. 2. President, Chithari Service Co-operative Bank, No.C.45, Po.Ravaneeswaram. (Adv.P.Appukuttan, Hosdurg) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Shorn of all other averments and allegations the gist of the complainant is that opposite parties did not waive or write off the agricultural loan she availed from opposite parties Bank by including her loan in the agricultural loan debt waiver scheme for the reason that her loan is a non-agricultural loan. Thereafter she obtained a copy of her loan application from opposite parties Bank under RTI Act. In the copy of she could see variations in the columns filled. The copy given to her was not the copy of the original application she submitted to opposite parties. The opposite parties intentionally made alterations to her loan application and converted it as a loan non-agricultural loan and thereby denied her the benefits of agricultural loan waiver scheme. Therefore the complaint claiming compensation of 50,000/- rupees with costs. 2. According to opposite parties complainant has not applied for agricultural loan. She had availed a surety loan. As per the scheme and rules of the Bank agricultural loan cannot be allowed to the person who doesnot own agricultural land or any immovable property. The complainant has taken a non-agricultural loan. Therefore she was not eligible for the getting benefit under the agricultural debt relief scheme. The proceedings initiated by complainant before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies were dismissed after conducting proper enquiry. The opposite parties never avoided the complainant from getting the benefits of Farmer’s Debt Relief Scheme to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of her claim as PW1. Exts A1 to A3 marked. She faced cross-examination by the counsel for the opposite parties. On the side of opposite parties the 1st opposite party, Secretary of the Bank filed proof affidavit and Exts B1 to B6 marked. One witness is examined as DW2. 4. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of a basic land tax payment receipt of the complainant dated 8-7-2003. Ext.A2 is the Photostat of her loan account pass book issued from opposite parties bank. In the affidavit PW1 stated that she could not repay the loan since her disease asthma aggravated and she was under the belief that the said loan ought to have waived by opposite parties bank under Farmer’s Debt Relief Scheme. But when she made enquiry it was told that the loan given to her was a non-agricultural one and hence it is not eligible for waiver. During cross-examination by the learned counsel for opposite parties PW1 stated that she has used the loan for her treatment purpose and it was not utilized for any agricultural purposes. 5. On the other hand DW1 during cross-examination has stated that he is unable to say how the loan applications of the complainant and Madhaviamma submitted together before the director board of the bank on the same day were classified in to categories as agricultural loan and non-agricultural loan. 6. The whole case of the complainant stems from the loan applications submitted by the complainant before the opposite parties. According to her she applied for an agricultural loan for which she deposited the original of Ext.A1 before the Bank. According to complainant one Savithri & Madhavi were the sureties of her loan. But in the loan application Ext.B4 one Rohini and Madhavi are the sureties. According to complainant Rohini was ineligible to stood as surety at that time since one of the loan availed by Rohini was due and as per the norms a loanee whose loan is at default for payment is not eligible to act as guarantor. Further in Ext.B4 loan application the column left for the purpose of loan is seen unfilled. So how the opposite party considered the loan as a non-agricultural loan and how a defaulter of loan is entered as surety etc are behind the veil. 7. In this case the complainant is also not approached the Forum with clean hands. Ext.B6 is the copy of the complaint lodged by Rohini the surety of the complainant before Legal Service Authorities, Kasaragod. In the said complaint Rohini has stated that she had availed a loan from opposite party Bank before 1-6-2004 and to repay the said loan she availed agricultural loan in the name of her sister Leela (who is the present complainant herein). From the above and as well as from the deposition of PW1 it is clear that the complainant has not utilized the loan availed for agricultural purpose. Then how can she claim the benefits of Farmers Debt Relief Scheme that is intended to help the hapless Farmers whose agricultural crops were ruined in natural calamites? 8. Similarly opposite parties are also committed grave deficiencies in their services. Instead of finding out the real farmers who are eligible for the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waivers Scheme they granted loans indiscriminately to those persons whom they are interested. The norms for granting loans were also seen flagrantly violated. The existing system and procedures for granting loans (both agricultural and non-agricultural) by the co-operative societies need a thorough overhaul. The biased, nepotic, politically motivated approach to the loans should be replaced by a professional transparent system. Thereby no eligible hands shall be denied the social oriented beneficial schemes like Farmers Debt Relief Scheme. At the same time it shall also prevent the incompetent hands enjoying such benefits on extraneous considerations. 9. The further contention of the learned counsel for opposite parties that the complainant had already resorted the provisions of Secf.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and therefore the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum is not sustainable. Sec.3 of the CP Act says that Consumer Protection Act is an addition to and not in derogation of any other laws. The complaint before the Forum is alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the arbitrator appointed under the Co-operative Societies Act is not adjudicated the issue regarding the deficiencies in service on the part of opposite parties in that proceedings. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions held that a complaint is maintainable before Consumer Forum against Co-operative Societies. In the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society V M. Lalitha reported in (2004) 1 SCC 305 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that any remedy provided under Co-operative Society Act doesnot bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence to sum up, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for the relief of Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme since she had not utilized the loan for agricultural purpose. At the same time it is come out in evidence that the opposite parties committed deficiency in their service violating the norms and procedures of loans and that paved the way for this complaint. Therefore we are of the view that the opposite parties are liable to pay the cost of these proceedings to the complainant. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, in the circumstances opposite parties are directed to pay 2500/- rupees to the complainant as the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.Photocopy of land tax receipt of complainant. A2. Photocopy of loan account pass book. A3.20-7-09 letter issued by Co-op. Joint Regitrar (General) Kasaragod to T.Leela B1.1-6-04 Jamyakadam Vaypadharam B2. Photocopy of Loan Ledger B3.Photocopy of loan ledgter page No.81. B4. 21-5-2004 Loan application. B5.30-3-2004 loan application B6.Petition filed by T.Rohini before the Hosdurg Taluk Legal Service Committee PW1. T.Leela. DW1.Mohanan.O. DW2.Madhavi. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
