BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 74 of 2011 against C.C. 111/2009, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar
Between:
Pulluri Thukkrao
S/o. Namba Rao
Age: 93 years, Agriculture
R/o. Vadkapur
Julapally Mandal
Karimnagar Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
And
The Secretary
Primary Agriculture Credit Society
Doolikatta Post
Eligaid Mandal
Karimnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P.
Counsel for the Appellant: P.I.P.
Counsel for the Respondent: Served.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THIS THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND ELVEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he availed loan for development of agriculture in the year 1989 from the respondent society. He had repaid Rs. 20,000/- on 10.1.1994. Instead of crediting the said amount in his account it has credited the amount in the account of one P. Thukka Rao S/o. Thirumala Rao. It has issued an illegal demand notice calling upon him to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards arrears of loan amount without any basis. Therefore he claimed adjustment of Rs. 20,000/- together with damages and costs.
3) The respondent society resisted the matter. It alleged that the complainant has availed two loans one by showing his father name as Pulluri Tukka Rao, S/o. Namba Rao and another by showing his adopted father as Jalapathi Rao. When he has failed to pay one of the loans it had initiated proceedings on which he paid the amount. Accordingly it has credited Rs. 10,000/- each in two accounts to the credit of above said accounts. The complainant filed C.D. 104/1998 before the Dist. Forum alleging that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was wrongly adjusted to another account and prayed to re-adjust the same to his loan account. On dismissal of the complaint, on appeal F.A. 1045/2005, State Commission directed the society to credit Rs. 20,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from 10.1.1994. For non-compliance P.P. 24/2007 was filed and an amount of Rs. 36,300/- was deposited. On filing F.S. memo Dt. 4.6.2007 P.P. was closed. The complainant was liable to pay Rs. 19,010/- towards arrears of loan amount. On that again he filed the complaint, and therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A15 marked while the respondent society filed the affidavit evidence of its secretary and got Exs. B1 to B15 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant had taken two loans and by virtue of earlier orders of this Commission, the amount that was paid i.e., Rs. 20,000/- was repaid to him. In regard to other loan he was liable to pay the said amount. The question of again adjusting Rs. 20,000/- would not arise and therefore dismissed the complaint.
6) Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It did not consider that under NABARD relief scheme agricultural loans have to be waived off. It has mis-read the documents. The respondent society had to reimburse the amount paid by him. Since the amount was paid he was not liable to pay any amount, and therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) The complainant previously filed C.D. 104/1998 describing him as Pulluri Tukka Rao, S/o. Namba Rao questioning the demand notice dt. 16.11.1993 issued for Rs. 41,000/-. According to him he paid Rs. 20,000/- on 10.1.1994 and the said amount ought to have been credited into his loan account. Instead it was credited to another account of P. Tukka Rao, S/o. Thirumala Rao and therefore a direction was to credit the amount in his account. The complaint was dismissed. Against the order of dismissal of the complaint, this Commission in F.A. No. 1045/2005 by order dt. 17.4.2006 directed the respondent society to credit Rs. 20,000/- to the account of the complainant together with interest @ 6% p.a., from 10.1.1994. Strangely the complainant filed P.P. 24/2007 for recovery of Rs. 36,300/-. Still more curious the society had deposited the amount before the Dist. Forum and the amount was withdrawn by the complainant and P.P. was closed.
9) At this juncture we may state that under NABARD scheme, the loan given earlier shown as outstanding was waived off only, for one account which is due to be paid on the date. Basing on which the complainant was allowed to withdraw the amount. In regard to loan account No. 30/E contracted by the complainant showing the name of his father Jalapathi Rao an amount of Rs. 19,010/- was due as on 30.6.2007. It had extended waiver of total amount of interest accrued to an extent of Rs. 41,945/- as on 30.6.2007 viz., Rs. 33,815/- towards penal interest and Rs. 8,130/- towards interest). Last payment of Rs. 3,000/- was made on 28.4.1995. Therefore as on 31.12.2009 an amount of Rs. 23,762/- is recoverable comprising of Rs. 19,010/- towards principal and Rs. 4,572/- towards interest accrued from 1.7.2007 to 31.12.2009. Therefore the complainant was not entitled to claim any amount nor the amount that was paid on 10.1.1994. In fact it was adjusted already as per the direction of this Commission. The complainant has withdrawn the amount in view of waiver scheme. It was not in dispute that the complainant had contracted two loans by filing two applications one as S/o. Jalapathi Rao another as S/o. Namba Rao vide Exs. B3 & B4. The disbursement-cum-loan ledger is Exs. B8. The society has filed Ex. B10 receipt that was passed by the complainant having received Rs. 36,300/- by virtue of orders of this Commission in F.A. No. 1045/2005. For the first time in appeal a contention was taken that he was entitled to debt relief scheme of NABARD. Neither rules were filed nor he proved that he was entitled to waiver of entire loan amount.
10) The society filed the affidavit of secretary mentioning the benefits that were given under the NABARD scheme by detailed reply. The secretary of the society has given detailed calculations pertaining to the second loan contracted by him. No doubt the Secretary in his counter, obviously finding the mistake, requested the Dist. Forum to dismiss C.C. No. 111/2009 and pass orders for refund of Rs. 36,300/- withdrawn in P.P. No. 24/2007 on 2.6.2007 by the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a., from 2.6.2007 till the date of repayment in the interests of justice. If really it had paid the amount by mistake, it ought to have filed recovery proceedings. Evidently, the co-operative society was not evincing any interest. Obviously the society was unable to comprehend the order and deposited the amount.
At no time this Commission directed the society to deposit the amount what all directed was to adjust an amount of Rs. 20,000/- paid by the complainant on 10.1.1994. The deposit of amount and withdrawal by complainant are equally incorrect. However; we are unable to adjudicate the said claim in this complaint, it being a different claim.
11) The complainant admittedly did not pay any amount under the second loan for which demand was made. The complainant intends to take advantage of the earlier order and again contend that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- ought to have been deducted from his loan account. This is an unjust claim. The complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
12) In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
01/06/2011
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
