Kerala

Wayanad

CC/10/27

P Leela, Punchavayal House, Kayakunnu PO, Mananthavady. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary, Karshika Vikasana Bank, Panamaram. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2010

ORDER


Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, WayanadConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad
Complaint Case No. CC/10/27
1. P Leela, Punchavayal House, Kayakunnu PO, Mananthavady.Kerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. Secretary, Karshika Vikasana Bank, Panamaram.Kerala2. President , Karshika Vikasana Bank, Panamaram.WayanadWayanadKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW ,MemberHONORABLE MR. P Raveendran ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 31 Jul 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:


 


 

The complaint filed for the benefit of the debt waiver and debt relief Scheme 2008.


 

2. The complaint in brief is as follow:- The Complainant is an agriculturists who mortgaged the land property in the Opposite Party Bank to avail loan. The liability as informed by the Opposite Party amount to Rs.12,97,540/-. The Complainant is having an extent of 4 acre and 93 cent of land. The loan amount which is due was to be waived off by the Opposite Party under the debt waiver and debt relief scheme. The claim of the

complainant for the benefit of the waiver scheme was not considered on the ground that the Complainant does not come under the category of small farmer instead. The Complainant is wrongly enlisted among the other farmers which is absolutely a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party may be directed to issue benefit of the debt waiver and debt relief scheme and the tittle deed deposited by the Complainant is to be given back absolving the Complainant from the liability of the Opposite Party.


 

2. The Opposite Party filed version it is in short as follows:- The Complainant is a loanee of different heads except ARF 192A, ARF 652 the other loans do not come under the agriculture. Extent of the land property in the title pledged by the Complainant is 5.19 ½ acres. The relief under debt waiver and debt relief scheme 2008 the farmers who have more than 5 acres in extend the land property come in the category of other farmers. The benefit offered under the scheme is under one time settlement wherein such a farmer has to pay 75% of the loan amount and the 25% would be written off. The Complainant can be included only in the category of other farmers. The benefit of the scheme possible to be extented to the Complainant which were in the scheme of other farmers in case remitted 25% of the loan amount. The Opposite Party is aware of those things the original documents pledged by the Complainant cannot be given back till the liability of the Complainant still remains uncleared. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complaint is to be dismissed with the Opposite Party.


 

3. The points in consideration are:-

  1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

  2. Relief and Cost.

4. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Party. Exts. A1 to A4 and B1 to B9 are the documents produced. Apart from the documents produced by the Complainant and Opposite Party, the oral testimony of both the parties are taken into consideration.


 

5. The allegation of the Complainant is that the benefit of the debt waiver and debt relief scheme was not rendered to him and the Complainant also comes within the ambit of the small farmer who eligible for the benefit of the scheme. ExtB1 is the loan application dated 06.02.97 the extent of the land property in the resurvey No.620 is 2.31 acres. In resurvey No. 622 is 1.20 acres, in resurvey No.558/1B is 1.24 ½ acres and in resurvey No. 558/1A1B is 0.44 acres. Total extent of the land property pledged in the Opposite party Bank is 5.19 ½ acres. The Complainant produced a possession certificate and other relevant documents issued from revenue recovery authorities. This documents exemplifies that the Complainant's extent of the land property is below 5 acres for the time being. It is pertinent to note that the documents produced by the Complainant are issued after filing of this complaint. On examination of this Complainant it is deposed that pledging the land property of 10 acre and 23 ½ cent in the first instance and the loan was availed by the complainant. The transfer of the land property to the son of the Complainant was not within the awareness and acknowledgment of the Opposite Party. Ext.B2 makes it clear that the land property pledged for availing the loan is having an extent of 5.19 ½ acres. The Complainant has no case that sufficient steps were taken to get the documents restructured deducting the land extent which was not actually in possession. On verification of documents it is seen that the property pledged by the Complainant is more than 5 acres in extent better to say 5.19 ½ acres. It is also admitted by the Complainant that the actual extent of the land property in resurvey is lesser than the extent of land covered by the title deed that is pledged. The affidavit filed in the Opposite Party's bank is entered with 5.19 ½ extent of land. The entire documents produced by the Complainant towards the loan makes it cleared that the extent is 5.19 ½ acres. As per the debt waiver and debt relief scheme, the Complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the debt waiver and debt relief scheme offered to small and marginal farmers. It is also admitted by the Complainant that no steps were taken by him to get reduced the extent of land property pledged by the Complainant. More over the Complainant has not taken any steps to get the benefit of the scheme which are provided to other farmers. According to the directions with respect to the debt waiver and debt relief scheme, the benefit of the scheme for other farmers is possible if party remit the 75% of the debited sum. In this case such an effort was also not taken by the Complainant. The relief prayed by the Complainant cannot be considered. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.


 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost.


 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31st July 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Sanathanan. Agriculture.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of the Receipt. dt:22.4.2010.

A2. Ownership Certificate.

A3. Certificate. dt:17.03.2010.

A4 series (2 numbers) Plan.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Loan application form.

B2. Copy of Ownership Certificate. dt:26.11.91.

B3. Copy of Receipt. dt:26.11.91.

B4. Copy of Receipt. dt:26.11.91.

B5. Copy of document No.1894 of 1980.

B6. Copy of Encumbrance Certificate.

B7. Copy of Encumbrance Certificate.

B8. Copy of Loan application form.

B9. Copy of Loan application form.


[HONORABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW] Member[HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran] Member