By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is a loanee from the Opposite Party having land property in the extent of 1 acre 25 cent. The Opposite Party issued the loan for agricultural purpose to the Complainant in the year 1999. Due to drought and other crop failure, the loan could not be renewed from time to time but the sum of Rs.68,000/- with interest was liable to be waived off under debt waiver scheme of Central Government. The loan amount reached to the sum of Rs.2,12,453/- due to the non renewal. According to the Opposite Party the loan was given to the Complainant for the purpose of house construction. The Complainant has not given any supporting documents for the construction purpose of house. The loan amount availed from the Opposite Party's bank was liable to be waived off but not done the same which is absolutely a deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to write off the loan amount listing the Complainant in the scheme along with cost and compensation.

2. The Opposite Party filed version in brief it is as follows:- The Complaint itself is not maintainable the dispute raised in the complaint cannot be adjudicated in the Forum being it is not within the jurisdiction limit under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. The contention of the Complainant that he availed a loan in 1999 which has been renewing from time and again is not correct. The Complainant deposited the title deed of this land property as security and availed loan which was for house renovations as avered in the application. The benefit of debt waiver scheme is extended to the loan availed for agricultural purpose alone the loanee herein was not provided loan for agricultural purposes and the amount reached to Rs.2,13,928/-, according to the latest calculation including interest and other charges. The loan availed for renovation work of the house does not come within the purview of the scheme. The complaint filed is nothing but an experimental one. The amount itself shows that the loan availed by the Complainant is for non agricultural purpose. Since the debited sum was for non agricultural purpose, in any respect the Complainant is not entitled to get Rs.68,000/- for the extend of land property of 1 acre 25 cents. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief it is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.

3. The points in consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

3. Relief and cost.

    

4. Point No.1:- It is the settled position that the Consumer Protection Act is not derogatory to any other law. If any dispute arises in the payment of the loan by the loanee. It can be awarded in the proceedings of arbitrator how ever as a consumer the right of the complaint to adjudicate the matter before Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum cannot be denied and the point is found accordingly.

5. Points No.2 and 3:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant. Exts.A1 to A6 are the documents produced for the Complainant. The Opposite Party has not produced any documents. The oral testimony of the Complainant is also taken into consideration.

6. The contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party's Bank has not given the benefit of the debt waiver and debt relief scheme to the Complainant for which the Complainant is entitled for. The Complainant's loan was to be waived of since it was taken for agricultural purpose pledging the land property. Ext.A1 is the copy of the loan application issued to the Complainant. The loan application itself is titled as non agricultural purpose. The amount sanctioned in the meeting of the Director Board of the Opposite Party' Bank dated 02.11.1999 was Rs.75,000/-. NAST loan was sanctioned to the Complainant as resolved in the meeting, the interest of loan amount was 18% one of the contentions of the Complainant is that in Ext.A1 the column for the purpose of availing the loan it is written as house construction whereas the Complainant has not produced anything in support of getting a loan for house construction so that the loan availed was for agricultural purpose. If the loan was issued to house renovation it would have been accompanied with supporting documents. In the light of this aspect alone it cannot be considered that the loan amount issued to the Complainant is for agricultural purpose. The Complainant has not produced any documents that he had given the objection to the Opposite Party's bank in the non waiving of debited amount. The interest for agricultural loan and non agricultural loan is also to be verrying the interest calculated in this loan is 18% on examination of the Complainant it is also admitted that from the face of records produced it cannot be seen that the loan issued is for agricultural purpose. We are in the opinion that the loan amount availed by the Complainant was for non agricultural purpose, which does not come within the purview of debt waiver and debt relief scheme and the Complainant is also not entitled for the benefit.

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

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st 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 Mortgage Deed. dt:12.11.2000.

A2. Copy of Promissory Note.

A3. (1 Page) Copy of Liability Register.

A4. Copy of Minutes Book.

A5. Copy of Deed. dt:12.10.1999.

A6. Copy of consolidated claim for the amount in respect of loan waiver.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.