BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of August, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.38/2009

Between

Complainant : Mathai Mathai,

Thakarappillil House,

Parappuzha P.O,

Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: M.K.Kunjachan & K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,

Nedumattom Service Co-operative Bank Limited No.1292,

Vandamattom P.O,

Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: A.J.Wilson & M.M.Lissy)

2. The Special Sale Officer,

Nedumattom Service Co-operative Bank Limited No.1292,

Vandamattom P.O,

Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Complainant availed a loan of Rs.10,000/- on 08.06.1998 and Rs.65,000/- on 28.06.1998 from the opposite party bank for the purpose of agriculture. He cultivated pineapple, plantain tree etc., by that amount. But the complainant was not able to repay the loan in time, because of the destruction of cultivation and low price for agricultural products. The petitioner had mortgaged his 2 acre 30.5 cents of land in survey No.996/1 in Kodikkulam Village for the loan. When the loan became due, the opposite party initiated Recovery proceedings. Even though the Government declared several benefits for the defaulted agricultural loans, the complainant never obtained any benefits from that. The opposite party told to the complainant that he is not entitled for the benefits declared by the Government. The Government has directed that the bank should not take interest more than 10.5 % for agricultural loans, penal interest should not be calculated for agricultural loans, and also provided One Time Settlement scheme. Complainant was entitled to get the benefit of debt waiver scheme. But the opposite party deliberately avoided the same. Complainant was given application for the same. On 22.01.2009 the opposite party issued demand notice stating auction sale of the property of the complainant for the defaulted amount of Rs.1,51,517/-. When the complainant approached opposite party, they have assured some reduction for the loan. But the opposite party is not willing to give the benefits declared by the Government. So the petition is filed for getting the debt relief benefits declared by the Government.

2. As per the written version of the 1st opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant, who is the member of the bank availed a loan of Rs.1 lakh from the 1st opposite party bank. But the interest of the loan was 19%. As per the direction of the 'NABARD' for sanctioning agricultural loan, there should be a loan limit application filed before getting the loans. Then only he is entitled for agricultural loan. It was stated to the complainant at the time of availing the loan. Then the complainant told that he never needed agricultural loan. The loan amount limited for agricultural purpose was Rs.10,000/- for 1 acre. So the complainant was entitled for Rs.10,000/- as agricultural loan. The interest for agricultural loan was only 13.5% at that time. But when application was submitted by the complainant, the purpose of loan was written as "agriculture". But the bank did not correct the same. The interest of the loan was 19%, it itself shows that the loan was not agricultural. Moreover it was written in red ink on pass book that "OL" (Own Fund loan). It is very clear that it was not agricultural loan. On 07.02.2009 there was a settlement made in the loan account before the Assistant Registrar(General), Idukki. As per the settlement the interest rate was reduced and agreed by both parties. But the complainant again defaulted the same. The value of pineapple was steady for the last 10 years and there was high market value for the same. No information was reported before the bank or Agriculture Office about the destruction of plantain cultivation. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

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 affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.P1 to P4 marked and the affidavit filed by the opposite party and Ext.R1 to R3 marked.

5. The POINT:- Complaint is filed for getting the debt waiver benefits introduced by the Government for agricultural loans. Complainant filed Chief affidavit. Complainant availed a loan of Rs.10,000/- on 08.06.1998, the copy of the loan application is marked as Ext.P1. Exts.R1 and R2 produced by the opposite party in CC.36/2009 is common in this case also. Complainant availed Rs.1 lakh as agricultural loan from opposite party. Complainant cultivated plantain, pineapple in his land by the loan amount. Complainant's 2 acre 30.5 cents of land was given as security for the loan. But the crops were destructed and the price of the crops were also diminished. So he was not able to repay the loan. But there were several schemes introduced by the Government for the debt relief such as debt waiver, One Time Settlement, but none of them were obtained for the complainant because of the act of opposite parties. The Circular of the Government is marked as Ext.P4. The bank initiated auction proceedings against the property. Ext.P3 is the copy of the Advertisement for auction for the complainant's property. As per opposite party, the loan was not an agricultural loan. The rate of interest was 18%. It was written in the bank passbook in red ink "OL" (Own Fund loan). If any person applies for agricultural loan they should apply for loan limit application, as per instruction of NABARD. The loan limit for agricultural loan was Rs.10,000/- for 1 acre at that time and the interest was 12.5%. But the complainant submitted the application for loan with purpose of loan as agriculture. But the complainant and OP1 were aware that it was not agricultural loan. The opposite party produced copy of two minutes of the bank board meetings which are Ext.R1 and R2 stating the reduction of interest.

The complainant never filed an application for limiting the amount for sanctioning the agricultural loan as per the NABARD. The loan application is not produced by the opposite party. But the OP1 admitted that the purpose of loan written in the application is agriculture. The complainant did not produce any evidence to show that they have filed an application as per the direction of NABARD. No evidence produced by the complainant to show that the cultivation was failure, and the price of the crops were diminished. There was no dispute for the interest at the time of availing the loan by the complainant. Moreover it is not evident that, whether the complainant paid any amount to the loan account. The opposite party also did not produce any evidence for the same. It means that the complainant never paid any amount to the loan account. So mere writing on the loan application that the purpose is agriculture will not award to any of the benefits for the same. As per the written version of the opposite party, the loan availed by the complainant is on 31.03.2001 and the rate of interest is 19%. The amount availed by the complainant is 1 lakh rupees. But as per affidavit of the opposite party, the rate of interest is 18% and the amount of the loan is Rs.1 lakh. As per the complainant and as per Ext.P1, the copy of the pass book, the loan availed by the complainant is Rs.10,000/- on 08.06.1998 and Rs.65,000/- on 29.06.1998. Ext.P3 also supports Ext.P1. It means that the opposite party is in confusion about the interest rate of the loan and also about the amount of the loan. So we think that the complainant should produce evidence before the opposite party that there was a loss in the agriculture because of unawaitable reasons. The opposite party should consider the complainant's loan application for the benefits of the scheme introduced by the Government.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to apply for getting the benefits as per Ext.P4 declared by the Government within one month for the complainant's loan. If it is not obtained, the opposite parties are directed to include in the OTS scheme of the opposite party for settling the loan account of the complainant by giving installments, penal interest should be avoided for settling the loan account and OP1 is directed to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of August, 2009

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

Nil

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Loan Pass Book

Ext.P2 - E.A Demand Notice issued by the 2^nd opposite party

Ext.P3 - Auction Notice

Ext.P4 - Photocopy of Notification of Debt Waiver Relief Scheme

On the side of Opposite Parties:

Ext.R1 - True copy of Minutes Book dated 27.01.2001 stating the reduction of interest

Ext.R2 - True copy of Minutes Book dated 23.08.2001

Ext.R3 - Order No.G.04/08 dated 7.02.2009 issued by the Assistant Registrar (General) Thodupuzha Taluk Co-operative Society