DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………………..
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Smt.S.Rath, Member.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated,Bolangir the 18th day of February 2015.
C.C.No.58 of 2009.
1.Charan Pradhan,age-42 years son of late Ananta Pradhan.
2.Hadu Mohapatra,age-48 years son of Tulasi Mohapatra.
3.Kailash Mohapatra,age-43 years son of Tulasi Mohapatra.
4.Sudhir Kumar Pradhan,age- years son of Krushna Ch.Pradhan.
5.Chhali Seth,age- years son of Mangalu Seth.
6.Shyam Sundar Naik,age-51 years son Parsuram Naik,(dead) on his behalf
Smt.Manjari Naik,age-52 years (wife)
All are resident of village/P.O-Samara,P.S.TusuraDist-Bolangir.
7.Madan Mohan Kumura,age-years,son of Sunadhar Kumura.
8.Rahas Mohananda,age-51 years son of Diba Mohananda.
9.Balabhadra Kumbhar,age-56 years son of Hiraman Kumbhar.
Sl.Nos.7,8 and 9 are resident of village-Buromal P.O.Samara,
P.S- Tusura, Dist- Bolangir.
10.Goura Bhoi,age-62 years son of Ram Bhoi,Resident of Lurki,
P.O-Samara,P.S.Tusura,Dist- Bolangir.
11.Lalit Mohan Pradhan,age-61 years son of Debarchan Pradhan.
Village-Badangomunda P.O.Samara P.S.Tusura,Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainants.
-Versus-
1.Secretary, Jharsamara Service Co-Operative Society Ltd.
At/P.O.-Jharsamara P.S.Tusura,Dist- Bolangir.
2.Branch Manager, DCCB Ltd. Tusura At/P.O/P.S-Tusura,
District- Bolangir.
3.Secretary, DCCB Ltd. Bolangir,At/P.O/P.S/Dist-Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Advocate for the complainants – Sri B.C.Pradhan. & Associates.
Advocate for the Opp.Parties - Sri L.R.Padhi & Associates.
Date of filing of the case – 17.06.2009
Date of order of the case - 18.02.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
In short, complainants of village Samara under P.S.Tusura, are farmers and availed the loan for agricultural purpose in sustenance of their livelihood. It is averred, the complainants are member of Jharasamunda Co-operative Society which is drought prone area. Further the complainants added, they are small farmers and the small farmers status is well admitted in the issued Pass Book and in other document.
2. The complainants again stated, the loan sanctioned is as per the guidelines in force and the O.Ps deliberately avoiding to admit themselves as small farmers and they are deprived of the benefit under Agricultural Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme,2008 and the O.Ps in implementing the scheme is in too reluctant to act ,rather issued demand notice to repay the loan which is deficient service and shortcoming in view of the proposed scheme waiver not implemented deligently.
3. The complainants prayed to incorporate in the purview of the loan waiver scheme 2008 and be compensated for the harassment and mental agony. Relied on agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme 2009,guidelines photocopy, letter No.3348/dt.01.08.2009, Samiti Member Identity Card/Pass Book Photo copy, ROR certified copy- Photo copy and lonely affidavit of Hadu Mohapatra, the complainant No.2 in the application.
4. That on notice, the O.P.1 appeared and filed the version admitting the complainants are members of the Jharasamara SCS and availed loan from the society. The submissions of the documents by the petitioners reveal the land particulars said, the complainants are big farmers. The circular supplied for agricultural Debt waiver and debt relief scheme 2008,clafify the other farmers as a farmer cultivating (as owner for tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 2 hectors (more than 5 acres) and the Grievance Redressal Officer, Bolangir, DCC Bank Ltd, Bolangir has also disallowed to avail the facility ADWDR as small farmers, praying the consumer case may be dropped against this O.P. as the allegations are false and baseless. Relied on Debt Waiver Scheme,2008,Letter -No.3348/01.08.2009.
5. On dated 09.02.2010,the O.P.1 further in supplement of the above version filed, contending in implementation of the ADWDR Scheme 2008 the guidelines of the scheme specifically defines the category of farmers and accordingly the bank is to classify the category and provide the benefit. According to the scheme all the complainants are coming under the category of other farmers and the O.Ps have provided the benefits as to the ; schematic category .Further stating, Para 10 of the scheme provides that all dispute relating to classification of farmers shall be dealt with by the Grievance Redressal Officer and his order shall be final. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case under the scheme. Neither the O.P can go away from the guidelines nor can decide the category of farmers of his own accord. Thereby the case is not maintainable under this Forum be decided at prelim before going to the merit of the case.
6. No version filed by the O.Ps 2 and 3,rather prefer to remain silence in the contending issues.
7. Heard the complainants and the learned counsels with apt attention and perused the erudite submission and the relevant documents on record.
8. On the preliminary issue, we found prima-facie the complainants are consumer availing the service from the society and sole contention raised by the O.Ps on maintainability is herewith discussed. As per the law, the demand notice served on dt.11.06.2009 and the date amply speaks the cause of action in institution of the allegations against the O.Ps. No barred of limitation and jurisdiction surfaced to note. On maintainability the question as raised by the O.P. that the Grievance Redressal Officer and his order is above any challenge, says the order is above the laws of the land is ridiculous and childish, as no such institution and its functions and functionary are vulnerable to faults and shortcomings and such delinquency needs adjudication before any law as the situation permits. Hence in this case, raising the issue is too pitiable to state. The case is a fit case to be adjudged on the basis of merit and maintainable with this Forum.
9. The main grouse of the complainants is that the rating of the cultivator as to be under purview of small farmer or other farmer as the contention goes. On the same issue, we prefer to discuss the guidelines on the subject.
Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008 (Guidelines for implementation of the scheme).
3.5-“Marginal Farmer” means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land up to 1 hectare (2.5 acres).
3.6-“Small Farmer” means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and up to 2 hectares.
3.7- “Other farmer” means a farmer cultivating 5 acres (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 2 hectares (more than 5 acres).
Explanation:-
1.The classification of eligible farmers as per the above land holding criteria under the scheme would be based on the total extent of land owned by the farmers either singly or as joint holder (in the case of an owner-farmer) or the total extent of land cultivated by the farmer (as tenant or share cropper) at the time of sanction of the loan, irrespective of any subsequent changes in ownership or possession.
2.In the case of borrowing by more than one farmer by pooling their land holdings, the size of the longest land holding in the pool shall be the basis for the purpose of classification of all farmers in that pool as marginal farmer” or small farmer or “Other farmer”.
3.In the case of a farmer who has obtained investment credit for allied activities, where the principal loan amount does not exceed Rs 50,000/- .He would be classified as “small and marginal farmer” and where the principal amount exceeds Rs 50,000/- ,He would be classified as “Other farmer” irrespective in both cases of the size of the land holding, if any.
10.Obligations of the lending institutions.
10.1-Every lending institution shall be responsible for the correctness and integrity of the lists of farmers eligible under this scheme and the particulars of the debt waiver or debt relief in respect of each farmer. Every document maintained, every list prepared and every certificate issued by a lending institution for the purposes of this scheme shall bear the signature and designation of an authorized officer of the lending institution.
10. On perusal of record, it is substantiated, the farmers Holding are as per the record as follows
Sl.No. Name of the farmer. Total cultivable land
1. Charan Pradhan. Ac 5.00 dec.
2. Hadu Mohapatra. Ac 3.50 dec.
3. Kailash Ch.Mohapatra. Ac 4.50 dec.
4. Sudhir Kumar Pradhan. Ac 5.00 dec.
5.Challu Sethy. Ac 5.00 dec.
6. Shyam Sundar Nayak. Ac 4.14 dec.
7. Madan Mohan Kumura. Ac 3.00 dec.
8. Rahas Mohananda. Ac 0.32 dec.
9. Balabhadra Kumbhar. Ac 3.50 dec.
10. Goura Bhoi. Ac 3.00 dec.
11. Lalita Pradhan. Ac 4.89 dec.
11. So it is considered, the cultivators are within the clause 3.5 and 3.6 of the explained guidelines and the Pass Book title admission by the O.P is not denounced or rebutted with documentary evidence. So also the complainants and the O.P both failed to adduce any document to be entitled or classified as small and Marginal farmer” under explanation made under para-3 ,point-3. On the other hand, the Grievance Redressal Officer has taken the farmers as classified “Other farmer” without any explained basis, rule, regulation and guidelines and passing of order contrary to the status in the issued pass ;book by the institution amply needs explained justification to admit. Hence, it is surfaced, the institution has acted arbitrarily and unreasonably for which the shortcoming, the petitioners being deprived of in incorporate under clause “small farmers”. So the institution is at fault, made imperfection & committed shortcoming rendering deficiency of service.
12. In view of the above noted findings, the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to the petitioners for the negligence that made out in the case.
Hence ordered;
The case is allowed on contest. The O.Ps are directed to entertain the petitioners do classified as “small farmers” category thereby to avail the opportunity and benefit under the agricultural debt waiver and debt relief shcme2008 & shall issue a certificate to the effect that the loan has been waived and specifically mentioning the eligible amount that has been waived and same be treated as waived in the respective account, within 30 days of this order, failing which Rs 10/- per day will accrue on each case till compliance of same.
No order as to the compensation and cost , in view of the above made circumstances.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014.
I agree. I agree.
( S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
