ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER
The complainant’s case is that the complaints 1 and 2 availed two agriculture loan from the opp.party bank of Rs.50,000/- each and executed bond and deposited Rs.1000/- as share. Since the loan is agriculture in nature as per circular NB [Kerala] No.CPD/1566/PL-14/2008-09, thebalance dues of the loan had to be write off . Without doing that the bank had taken attachment steps against the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting relief.
The opp.party filed version stating that the said loan is not an agricultural loan. The purpose of the loan is for the maintenance of their house. The said loan does not come in the purview of the Govt. Circular. The complainants did not repaid the instalments. Anticipating, recovery proceeding the complainant filed this complaint as an experimental measure. Hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the side of opp.party
2. Relief and cost.
For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Ext.P1
For the opp.party DW.1 was examined and marked D1 to D4.
Points 1 and 2
According to the opp.party the loan taken by the complainants was a non-agricultural one. In Ext.P1 it is clearly mentioned that “dlG,jdfkmGvv\wlaUe\eYfA”, which is executed by the complainant in favour of the opp.party bank President. The bank received only Rs.1000/- each as share from the complainant’s as it is an agriculture loan. For other loan the parties has to take Rs.2000/- as share. According to the opp.party the complainant had taken this loan for maintenance of house. Complainant’s case is that they have no house in their name. Opp.party could not adduce any evidence to show that the complainant have their own house and they took the loan for the maintenance of their house Ext. D1 and D2 cannot be taken as an evidence that the complainant had taken non-agricultural loan. DW.1 during cross examination admit that the 1st complainant had repaid Rs.30000/- and also the Limit of Agricultural loan is Rs.50,000/-. Here the complainants has taken loan of Rs.50,000/- each.
On considering the entire evidence we are of the view that the complainants had taken agricultural loan from the opp.party bank and as per circular No.NB CPD/1566/PL-14/2008-09 the loans are to be write off. There is deficiency in service on the side of opp.parties.
In the result , the complaint is allowed. The loan taken by the complainant from the opp.party bank is an agricultural loan. The opp.party bank is directed to writ off the balance due of the loans of the complainant. No compensation and cost is allowed. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2012.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. – Dinesan
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – dlG,jdfkmGv\vwlaU eYff\fjsRy Sdle\ej
List of witnesses for the opp.party
DW.1. – Sahadevan
List of documents for the opp.party
D1. – Application for Agricultural loan
D2. – Application for Agricultural loan
D3. - Venkadapathram
D4. - Loan Register.
