Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1115/2010

Agya Ram S/o Ram Saroop - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

23 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 1115 of  2010.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 25.11.2010.

                                                                                              Date of decision: 23.6.2015

Agya Ram son of Shri Ram Saroop, resident of VPO Mandhar, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.             .                                                                                                                                                                                               …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. State Bank of India, Branch Naharpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager. 
2. State Bank of India, Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, through its Chairman/Director/Authorized Signatory.  

…Opposite parties.

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. S.S.Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. P.K.Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking to issued direction to the OPs to waive off an amount of Rs. 1,48,712.50.

2.                     Appraising, the facts which has given arise to the present complaint are that complainant was owner in possession of land measuring 23 kanals situated in village Mandhar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. It is pleaded by the complainant that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Kisan Gold Card Limit on 17.5.2003 and Rs. 55000/- under K.C.C. Limit on 28.9.2001 i.e. a total sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- from the OP No.1 and OPs mortgaged his land measuring 23 kanal. It is further pleaded by the complainant that OPs disbursed the loan to the complainant but due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant could not pay the installments to the OPs bank. It is further stated that complainant received a legal notice from OP No.1 on 28.9.2010 regarding outstanding amount of loan and interest but the complainant was not able to deposit the amount due to financial crunches. It is claimed by the complainant that Hon’ble Prime Minister of India vide letter dated 10.6.2008 had waived of all the loans and interest of the farmers who had agriculture land less than 1.5 hectare i.e. less than 5 acres of land and are defaulter of loan and interest. On publication of this scheme, the complainant approached the OP No.1 bank upon which the official of OP No.1 told to the complainant that his loan and interest has also been waived off. However, to the anguish and surprise of the complainant, after few months the OP No.1 started pressurizing the complainant to deposit the loan amount as well as interest thereon in utter violation of the said notification dated 10.6.2008 and in default, the OP No.1 would put the land on auction. Due to the above illegal acts of the OPs the complainant has also served a legal notice on 9.6.2010 requiring the opposite parties to waive off the amount of the abovesaid limits of the complainant as per Instructions of the Government within 15 days from the receipt of this notice and further not to harass and pressurize the complainant in future. The complainant sent a reminder of the said notice on 1.9.2010 to the opposite party also but inspite of the service of the reminder the OPs did not do the needful rather sent an evasive reply dated 28.9.2010. The complainant was very much covered and entitled to get the relief of the said scheme. So, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as they have not waived off an amount of Rs. 1,48,712.50 alongwith interest wrongly charged from the complainant inspite of fact that complainant was very much entitled for the same under that scheme. The complainant has also prayed for grant of compensation of Rs. 30,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and Rs. 5500/- as cost of litigation.

3.                     On notice, being issued, the OPs appeared and filed written statement by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; maintainability, no cause of action and on merit, that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum and has not come with clean hands. The true facts are that complainant had availed the facility of Kisan Gold Card Limit to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 17.5.2003 and also availed KCC limit of Rs. 55000/- on 28.9.2001 and at the time of availing such loan facilities, the complainant was owner in possession of 32 kanal 05 marlas land. However, the ‘total land’ under cultivation of the complainant was 79 kanals 9 marla, out of this total land 24 kanal land belongs to Panchayat and remaining 23 kanals 4 marlas land belongs to the brother of the complainant namely Rajbir Singh and Rajpal Singh which was under the cultivation of the complainant. The complainant has furnished an affidavit in this regard that he was under cultivation of land 79 kanals 9 marlas. After proper verification and on the request of the complainant, the OPs sanctioned the loan subject to mortgaging his land 23 kanal in favour of the Bank and after mortgaging the land the lien regarding mortgaging was duly incorporated in the revenue record.

4.                     It has been further stated by the OPs that as per scheme of the Government the Kisan Gold Card account of the complainant had fallen under Debt Waiver Scheme and a sum of Rs. 75736.65 had been credited in his loan account on 28.6.2008 and in the K.C.C. Limit account also falls under Debt Relief and accordingly a sum of Rs. 71275/- were kept under O.T. S. account. Out of this amount 75% were to be paid by the complainant and 25% were to be paid by the Government. The complainant was duly informed in this regard  but the complainant instead of making payment of 75% amount sent a legal notice dated 9.6.2010.

5.                     Thereafter, the complainant was called and his account had been closed under compromise on 28.6.2010 in Banks O.T.S. Scheme. In the compromise the complainant assured the OPs that the remaining amount will be deposited by him shortly but when the complainant failed to deposit the outstanding amount then the OPs informed in this regard vide letter bearing No. SL-26 dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure R-3). The complainant instead of regularizing his account again sent a false legal notice on 1.9.2010 which was also duly replied vide letter bearing No. SL-60 dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure R-4). It has been further mentioned that as per the Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 the complainant falls under the definition of ‘other farmers’ and as per the definition of ‘other farmers’  a farmer cultivating agriculture land of more than 2 hectares (more than 5 acres) falls under the definition of ‘other farmers’. Accordingly the complainant had already been given the benefits according to the category in which he had fallen. The copy of the scheme is Annexure R-5. The benefits under the category of “other farmers” as per scheme is reproduced as under:-

6.1 Debit Relief.

In the case of ‘other farmers’, there will be a one time settlement (OTS) Scheme under which the farmer will be given a rebate of 25 percent of the ‘eligible amount’ subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of 75 per cent of the ‘eligible amount’.

                        Provided that in the case of revenue districts listed in Annex-I, ‘other farmers’ will be given OTS rebate of 25 per cent of the ‘eligible amount’ or 20,000/- whichever is higher, subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of the ‘eligible amount’.

6.                     Accordingly, the OPs informed the complainant regarding the abovesaid scheme but the complainant was adamant on his illegal demand to waive off his entire loan. It is alleged by the OPs that now the complainant has filed the present false complaint with the motive to harass the OPs. It is submitted that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs bank is a Nationalized Bank and work for the welfare of general public as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and Head Office. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought for. All the allegations leveled in the complaint are false, baseless and manipulated and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

7.                     To prove his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant, whereas on the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Mukesh Kumar Manager, SBI Branch Naharpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar as Annexure RX and documents as Annexure R-1 to R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.  The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance, whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

                        Before considering the facts of the case on merit, it is necessary to reproduce the following guidelines / definition for implements of this scheme of Debt Waiver and Debt Relief scheme 2008 and the same is as under:- 

3.                     Definition

3.1                   Direct Agricultural loans means, short term loan production loans and investment loans provided directly to farmers for agricultural purposes. This would also include such loans provided directly to groups of individual farmers (for example Self Help Groups and joint liability Groups) provided banks maintain disaggregated data of the loan extended to each farmer belonging to that group.

3.2                   “Short term production loan” means a loan given in connection with the raising of crops which is to be repaid within 18 months. It will include working capital loan, not exceeding Rs. 1 lakh, for traditional and non- traditional plantations and horticulture.

3.5                   “Marginal farmer” means a farmer cultivating (as owner of 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 (5 acres).

3.7                   “Other farmer” means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper )agricultural land of more than 2 hectares ( more than 5 acres).

            In the aforesaid scheme under serial No.5, 5.1 & 6.1 the following provisions were made:   

            5. Debit Waiver.

            5.1       In the case of a small or marginal farmer, the entire ‘eligible amount’ shall be waived.

            6. Debt Relief

            6.1       In the case of ‘other farmers’, there will be a one time settlement (OTS) Scheme under which the farmer will be given a rebate of 25% of the ‘eligible amount’ subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of 75 per cent of the ‘eligible amount’

                        Provided that in the case of revenue districts listed in Annexure-I, ‘other farmers’ will be given OTS rebate of 25 per cent of the ‘eligible amount’ or Rs. 20,000/- whichever is higher, subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of the ‘eligible amount’.

9.                     Undisputedly, the complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/-  under the Kisan Gold Card Limit on 17.5.2003 and also availed Rs. 55000/- under the KCC limit on 28.9.2001 from the OPs by mortgaging his land in favour of the bank. Further, undisputed fact is that as per scheme of the government, the OPs had credited Rs. 75736.65 in the loan account of the complainant on 28.6.2008 and an amount of Rs. 71275/- were also kept under O.T.S. account but the complainant had not deposited 75% of the amount. Hence the benefits of the O.T.S. Scheme was not given to the complainant.

10.                   The case of the complainant is that he was only owner in possession of 23 kanals land of village Mandhar, Sub Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar. In support of his contention he has not filed any document/revenue record of the land. On the contrary the case of the OPs is that the complainant was having land under cultivation totaling 79 kanals 9 marals out of which 24 kanals land belongs to Panchayat and 23 kanals 4 marlas land belongs to his brother namely Rajbir Singh and Rajpal Singh. In support of his contention, the OPs has filed copy of affidavit of the complainant himself (Annexure R-1) in which the complainant has himself admitted that 24 kanals land of village Mandhar belonging to Panchayat is under his cultivation and also filed another copy of affidavit of Sh. Rajpal Singh and Rajbir Singh in which it has been deposed that 23 kanals 4 marlas land belongs to them and the same is under cultivation of Agya Ram i.e. complainant. The OPs also placed on file copy of legal notice issued by the bank on 30.7.2010 (Annexure R-3) and further copy of legal notice dated 28.9.2010(Annexure R-4) and also filed copy of Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 (Annexure R-5.).

10.                   From the perusal of Annexures R-1 and R-2, it is clearly and undoubtedly proved on record that complainant was very much under cultivation  of land measuring 79 kanals 09 marlas as per statement of OPs. However, if we take the contention of the complainant himself that he is owner in possession of 23 kanals land then also he was under cultivation  of total land measuring 70 kanals 04 marlas ( 23 kanals own land plus 24 kanals panchayat land plus 23 kanals 4 marlas brother’s land). In this way, the complainant was under cultivation of more than 5 acres land which falls under the category of “other farmers”. It is strongly pleaded by counsel for the OPs that benefit under the category of ‘other farmers’ has already been availed by the complainant.  The arguments of the counsel for the complainant have no force because it is very much proved from the copy of affidavit Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 that complainant was under cultivation of other land also at the time of taking loan. The complainant has totally failed to controvert the defence taken by the OPs. Hence, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant in this regard are not tenable at all.  The case of the OPs is well proved on record from the documentary evidence.

                        Hence we are of the considered view that complainant was fallen in the category of ‘other farmers’ and benefit of this category had already been given to the complainant by the OPs. So, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

23.6.2015.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                               

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA   )

                                                                                                MEMBER

All the 1 to 7 pages of this judgment

are checked and signed by me.  

 

 

 

President

23.6.2015.