BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.211/2009

Between

Complainant : 1. C.N. Sankar,

Chelaplackal House,

Upputhode P.O.,

Idukki District.

2. Sanjayan,

Chelaplackal House,

Upputhode P.O.,

Idukki District.

(Both by Adv: Sibi Thomas)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,

Malanadu Co-operative Agricultural

and Rural Development Bank Ltd.,

No.K.352, Nedumkandam,

Idukki Branch, Nayarupara P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Anish George)

2. The Branch Manager,

Malanadu Co-operative Agricultural

and Rural Development Bank Ltd.,

No.K.352, Nedumkandam,

Idukki Branch, Nayarupara P.O.,

Idukki District.

3. The Sale Officer,

Malanadu Co-operative Agricultural

and Rural Development Bank Ltd.,

No.K.352, Nedumkandam,

Idukki Branch, Nayarupara P.O.,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,02,554 from the opposite party bank as loan Nos.393/H, 330/LD, 313/MI by giving a security of 1 acres and 41 cents of land. He was conducting agricultural work in his property with the loan amount. The complainant was not able to repay the loan amount because of destruction in agriculture and drought. So the loan became

due. So the complainant approached at the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission on 9.12.2008 as application No.272871. The Honourable Commission ordered the complainant to pay Rs.20,000/- on 9.3.2008, Rs.19,000/- on 9.4.2008 and Rs.19,000/- on 9.5.2008 to the opposite  party. The Honourable Commission also restrained further proceedings against the complainant and his property. As per the order, the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- on 10.3.2009 and receipt was given. On 31.1.2009 an order received from the secretary, Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission, stating that “the entire due of the complainant's loan up to 31.12.2007 were included in the write off scheme as per the order of the central government. So there is no need to provide any other debt relief to the complainant”. So the complainant never paid any amount further. The complainant was in a belief that the entire amount was included in the write off scheme of the government. On 23.10.2009 another notice received from the opposite party directing the complainant to appear before an Arbitration Execution Adalath conducting by the opposite party and there is a due of Rs.1,57,207/- in the loan. The opposite party denied the benefit declared by the Debt Relief Commission and deliberately made damages to the complainant, which is a deficiency in the part of the opposite party. The complainant is ready to pay balance amount as ordered by the Debt Relief Commission. So this petition filed for cancelling the orders issued against the complainant for the Adalath and also for compensation.

2. The oppositeparty filed a written version stating that the complainant is a member of the opposite party bank and he received a loan of Rs.75,000/- as loan No.393/H, Rs.14,000/- as loan No.330/LD and Rs.15,000/- as loan No.313/MI. So a total Rs.1,04,000/- was received in the period 2000-2001. When the loan became due the opposite party started auction procedure against the complainant for Rs.1,82,082/- through the Special Sale Officer. But the sale was postponed by the sale officer as per rule 8(F). The complainant paid only Rs.20,000/- on 10.3.2008 as per the order of the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission. The complainant has to pay Rs.19,000/-on 9.4.2008 and Rs.19,000/- on 9.5.2008, but it was not paid by him. As per the scheme of the central government, the Debt Waiver and Write off scheme 2008, Rs.16,712/- in loan No.330/LD and Rs.17,906/- in loan No.313/MI were included in the write off scheme and the benefit was given. As per the scheme the due amount up to 31.12.2007 was included in the scheme. The amount which are not included in the scheme are entitled to pay by the complainant. The government decided to conduct Arbitration Execution Adalath on 30^th November, 2009. A notice was issued to the complainant to appear before the Adalath which was issued by the special sale officer in the co-operative department. The auction proceedings against the complainant's property was postponed. So it need another sale proclamation in order to conduct any other auction. The complainant was given an application before the bank stating that he is ready to pay the balance amount Rs.15,000/- on 30.11.2009 and balance on 30.01.2010. So there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5. POINT :- The complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,02,554/- from the opposite party by pledging his property. When the loan became due the complainant approached the honourable Kerala State Debt Relief Commission and the Honourable Commission stayed the procedures of

auction with a condition to pay an amount of Rs.58,000/- in 3 instalments. So the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- on 10.3.2008. But the complainant was entitled to get the benefit of the scheme of the central government for debt waiver and write off, which was came into force at that time. The complainant was examined as PW1. The order from the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission is marked as Ext.P1. Another order from the secretary of the commission dated 31.1.2009 stating that the entire loan dues of the complainant up to 31.12.2007 were included in the write off scheme of the central government and so there is no need to give further debt relief to the complainant, which was final order from the commission, is marked as Ext.P2. So when PW1 approached the opposite party to disburse the second instalment of the loan as per the order of the commission, the staff of the opposite party told that the complainant need not pay the amount further. Thereafter a notice was issued from the opposite party which is Ext.P3 demanding an amount Rs.1,57,207/-. As per Ext.P3, it is also informed that the Adalath was conducting for the settlement of the amount. The complainant got an information stating a benefit of Rs.34,000/- was given to the complainant, so he never intended to pay the balance amount as per the order of the debt relief commission. The opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext. R1 is a copy of the letter given to the opposite party by the complainant dated 6.11.2009 stating that the complainant was ready to pay Rs.15,000/- on November 2009, the balance amount will be paid in January and it is also requested to stop proceedings against the complainant. The complainant availed housing loan and agricultural loan from the opposite party and both the loan became due. The opposite party is not aware, which are the loans considered by the Debt Relief Commission. The debt waiver scheme became force at the time of 2^nd and 3^rd due dates as per the order of the debt relief commission. No letter was issued to the complainant by the opposite party to show how much amount should be paid by him as per the order of the debt relief commission. The complainant was not entitled to get benefit of full write off scheme. It is only a conditional stay against the coercive proceedings of the opposite party. The statement of account due from the complainant's loan is marked as Ext. R3. Ext. R2 is the circular from Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram.

When the loan of the complainant became due, the complainant approached the honourable Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission and the commission ordered a conditional stay by paying Rs.58,000/- in 3 monthly instalments. But the complainant paid only one instalment. After that the debt waiver scheme of the central government was introduced and the complainant's loan was included in the same. As per the complaint the opposite party never received the 2^nd instalment from the complainant because of the circular issued by the central government and the complainant's loan was included in that scheme. The opposite party also admitted that the order was issued on that period. The complainant never paid the balance amount because there was an order from the secretary of the debt relief commission stating that entire due amount of the complainant's loan up to 31.12.2007 was included in the write off scheme and there is no need to give further debt relief to the complainant, which was the final order from the debt relief

commission. But the order of the commission was to pay 2^nd instalment on 9.4.2008 and 3^rd instalment on 9.5.2008. The final order was sent only on 31.1.2009 from the secretary, Kerala State Debt Relief Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. As per the opposite party the complainant was given a benefit of Rs.17,906/- and Rs.16,712/- as per the order of the government under the debt relief scheme. And the complainant is not entitled for further benefits. The auction procedures were not started because it need another auction advertisement as per the act. Ext. R1 is the letter produced by the opposite party stating, the complainant is ready to pay the balance Rs.15,000/- on 30.11.2009 and the entire balance in January 2010. Which means that the complainant is also aware that, he has to pay some amount to the opposite party bank. As per the complainant the opposite party was not ready to receive the 2^nd instalment amount as per the order of the commission. But what prevented the complainant from approaching the Honourable Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission against the opposite party for the non-receipt of the amount as directed by the Honourable Commission. The complainant got some benefit as per the debt waiver scheme of the central government. After that the amount should be adjusted to the amount ordered by the Debt Relief Commission. But the complainant has to file an application before the Kerala State Debt Relief Commission for the same.

But the matter was decided by the Honourable Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission and the commission ordered to pay some amount to the opposite party in 3 instalments. The complainant paid only one instalment. So it is not proper to decide the same matter. The complainant can approach the appropriate authorities for further remedy against the opposite party. If the opposite party never acted as per the order of the Commission, the complainant ought to have filed a petition before there.

So we think that the petition is not maintainable before this forum and the complainant can approach appropriate authority for further remedy within 3 months. The opposite party is directed to keep the proceedings against the complainant's property in abeyance till that.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of February, 2010.

sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

sd/-
 

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

sd/-
 

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Deposition :

On the side of the complainant :

PW1 - C.N. Sankar.

On the side of the opposite party :

DW1 - Jose V.O.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of the Order from Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission dated 9.1.2008.

Ext.P2 - Copy of the Order from the Secretary of Kerala State Farners Debt Relief Commission

dated 31.1.2009

Ext.P3 - Copy of the notice from the Arbitration Execution Adalath-2009, dated 23.10.2009.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - Copy of the letter given to the 3^rd opposite party by the complainant dated 6.11.2009.

Ext.R2 - Copy of the circular No.R1/58888/OTS-09/2009-10 dated 29.1.2010, from the

Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.,

Thiruvananthapuram.

Ext.R3 - Statement of Accounts due from the complainant's loan dated 30.11.2009.