Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1069/2010

Kashmir Singh S/o Molu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

K.C.Shakkarwal

16 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 1069 of  2010.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 10.11.2010.

                                                                                              Date of decision: 16.6.2015

Kashmir Singh son of Shri Molu Ram, resident of Village Radauri, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                            Versus

1. State Bank of India, Branch Naharpur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager. 
2. State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Sector-5, Panchkula, through its Regional Manager.   

                                            …Opposite parties.

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Karam Chand Shakkarwal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

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

 

 

ORDER

 

                        Appraising, the facts which has given arise to the present complaint are that complainant was the owner and in possession of land 28 kanal 5 marlas being 1/3^rd share of the land measuring 84 Kanal 16 Marlas, comprising in Khewat No. 49//48, Khatauni No. 118, Kitta 12, situated in the revenue estate of village Radauri, Tehsil Radaur, District  Yamuna Nagar. It is pleaded by the complainant that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- under “Kisan Gold Card Scheme” and also took a limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- i.e. a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the OP No.1 on 7.2.2006 and the OPs mortgaged his land measuring 24 kanals 7 marlas out of the 28 canals 5 marlas. It is further pleaded by the complainant that the OPs disbursed the loan to the complainant but due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant could not pay the installments to the OP Bank. It is further stated that the complainant received a legal notice from the OP No.1 on 28.1.2008 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 the Hon’ble Prima Minister of India vide letter dated 10.6.2008 had waived off all the loans and interest of the farmers who had agriculture land less than 1.5 hectares i.e. less than 5 acres of loan 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 the 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 said notification dated 10.6.2008 and in default, the OP No.1 would put the land on auction. Due to illegal demand by the OPs, the complainant deposited the entire loan amount alongwith interest with the OP no.1 and got redeemed the land from bank vide certificate dated 26.8.2009. The complainant was very much covered and entitled to get the relief of the said scheme.  So, the complainant has filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and claiming the refund of Rs. 5,60,000/- alongwith interest wrongly charged from the complainant inspite of the fact that the complainant was very much entitled for the same under that scheme. The complainant has also prayed for grant of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment etc.

2.                     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 complain; that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties as the account being already “closed”; that  the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. Further, the OPs have pleaded that the complainant applied for KCC loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- under KGC loan i.e. total loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- for agriculture purpose vide application dated 23.1.2006. The complainant also produced the revenue record of his land and as per the revenue record land measuring 54 kanal 02 marla was standing in the name of complainant. After proper verification and on the request of the complainant, the OPs sanctioned the loan subject to mortgaging his 24 kanal 7 marla land in favour of the bank and after mortgaging the land the lien regarding mortgaging was duly incorporated in the revenue record. The complainant mortgaged his land 24 kanal 7 marla in favour of the OP No.1 vide registered mortgage deed No. 2044 dated 27.1.2006 and the lien of the mortgaged land had also been incorporated in the jamabandi for the year 2002-03 and the complainant also executed hypothecation agreement in favour of the OPs and other relevant documents and after completion of all the formalities, the OPs disbursed the loan to the complainant. However, the complainant remained defaulter in repaying the loan amount as per agreement and the account of the complainant become irregular.  The officials of the OPs requested the complainant to regularize his loan account but the complainant failed to comply with that. It is further pleaded that in the year 2008 the Government introduced the “Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008” for the farmers and as per the scheme,  the complainant falls under the category of “ other farmers” as the complainant was owner in possession of more than 2 hectare i.e. more than 5 acres of land. 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’.

                        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 but when the OPs told the complainant, that if he remains fail to deposit the amount as per scheme in the prescribed period, in that eventuality he could not avail the benefits of the said scheme under the category in which he falls i.e. “ other farmers”. However later on, after understanding the scheme, the complainant was ready to close the account on 26.8.2009 after availing the benefits under the category of “other farmers”. It is alleged by the OPs that now the complainant has filed the present false complaint after the expiry of 1 ½ years with the only motive to harass the OPs. It is submitted that there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of 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.

3.                     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 Alok Kumar Asstt./Agriculture Manager as Annexure RX and documents as Annexure R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.   

4.                     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 Debt Waiver and Debt Relief scheme 2008:-

                        The finance Minister in his budget speech for the year 2008-2009, announced a Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 for farmers and the scope of scheme was to cover direct agricultural loan extended to ‘marginal and small farmer’ and ‘other farmers’ by Scheduled Commercial Banks, Regional Rural Banks, Cooperative Credit Institutions (Including Urban Cooperative Banks) and Local Area Banks (hereinafter referred to compendiously as “lending institutions”) as indicated in the guidelines.

                        Under the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief scheme 2008 the following guidelines for implements of the scheme were given as reproduced here:-

                        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.

                        “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.

                        “Marginal farmer” means a farmer cultivating (as owner of tenant or share cropper) agricultural land up to 1 hectare (2.5 acres).

                        “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).

                        “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’.

 5.                    Undisputedly, the complainant obtained a total loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- under Kisan Gold Card and K.C.C. Scheme from the OPs on 7.2.2006 by mortgaging the land measuring 24 kanal 7 marlas in favour of bank. Further the undisputed fact is that the complainant has repaid the entire loan on 26.8.2009 and the mortgaged land has been released by the OPs. The case of the complainant is that he was owner in possession of the land measuring 28 kanal 5 marlas being 1/3^rd share of the total land 84 kanal 16 marla comprised in khewat No. 49//48, Khatauni No. 118, Kittas. 12 situated within the revenue estate of village Radauri, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar and out of the abovesaid land 28 kanal 5 marlas, the complainant mortgaged 24 kanal 7 marlas with the OPs for the purpose of taking the loan. In support of his contention, the complainant has placed on record a copy of letter dated 10.6.2008 from the Prima Minister (Annexure C-2) addressed to farmers in which it is mentioned that a scheme has been launched by the Government  of India regarding waiving of loan amounts, as the agriculture is the back bone of economy. Further, the complainant has placed on record a copy of letter Annexure C-3 written by the OP No.1 whereby the mortgaged land of the complainant was released on repayment of entire loan amount and the revenue authority was requested to release the land from the charge of OPs. Further the complainant has placed on record copy of Fard Jamabandi for the year 2007-08 (Annexure C-4 ) and copy of Intkal (annexure C-5). The complainant has filed his own affidavit (Annexure C-6) in support of contention made in the complaint. Annexure C-7 produced by the complainant his application addressed to Tehsildar, Radaur for getting a certificate regarding the ownership of land measuring 28 kanals 5 marlas of village Radauri and on its application itself the revenue authority made a report dated 15.7.2011 that now the complainant Kashmiri Lal son of Molu Ram was having land measuring 16 kanal 5 marlas in Khewat No.49 and 0 kanal 7 marla in khewat No. 93 of village Radauri as per Fard jamabandi for the year 2007-08. The complainant has also filed copy of jamabandi of village Radauri for the year 2007-08, 2002-03 which are Annexure C-8 and C-9 showing the total land as 84 kanal 16 marlas  as well as 1/3^rd share of the complainant.  Annexure C-10 is the copy of scheme known as “Agriculture Debit Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008” and closed his evidence.

 6.                    On the contrary, the case of the OPs is that the complainant produced the revenue record of land measuring 54 kanal 2 marla standing in his name and after due verification and completion of all the formalities,  the loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- was disbursed to the complainant in the year 2006. However, the complainant remained defaulter continuously despite many requests and in this regard a legal notice was also served upon the complainant to regularize his account. In the mean time a scheme was introduced by the government in the year June 2008 and the complainant was covered under the category of “ other farmers” as the complainant was owner in possession of more than 2 hectare i.e. 5 acres of land and the complainant closed his account on 26.8.2009 after availing the benefits under the said category. “i.e. other farmers” and the present complaint deserves dismissal being devoid of merits.

                        To corroborate their version, the OPs have produced the copy of Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of affidavit of complainant dated 25.1.2006 Annexure R-2, Copy of Fard jamabandi for the year 2002-03 of village Radauri as Annexure R-3 showing land measuring 84 Kanal 16 marlas, copy of fard jamabandi for the year 2003-04 of village Lal Chhaper Annexure R-4 showing the land as 25 kanal 17 marlas, Annexure R-2 is the copy of affidavit of complainant in which it is deposed by the complainant that he is the owner of land measuring 54 kanal 2 marlas (28 kanal 5 marlas being 1/3^rd share of 84 kanal 16 marlas of village Radauri and 25 kanal 17 marlas of village Lal Chhappor.).  

7.                     From Annexure R-2 to R-4, it is clearly and undoubtedly proved on record that complainant was very much owner and in possession of land measuring 54 kanal 2 marlas. So in this manner, the complainant was owner in possession of more than 5 acres of the land which falls under the category of “Other farmers”. It is strongly pleaded by the counsel for the OPs that benefits under the category of “other farmers” has already been availed by the complainant and account was closed by him on 26.8.2009. At the time of arguments, counsel for the complainant argued that the Fard Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 of village Lal Chhappar produced by the OPs does not relate to the complainant. However, there is no force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant because it is very much proved from the Fard jamabandi Annexure R-4 that the complainant was having land measuring 25 Kanal 17 marlas in village Lal Chhappar. This fact is very much corroborated from the copy of affidavit produced by the complainant himself at the time of taking loan from the OPs bank in the year 2006. The arguments advanced by the counsel for complainant in this regard are not tenable at all. The case of the OPs is well proved on record from the documentary evidence and no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved on the part of OPs. So, 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.

16.6.2015.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                               

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA   )

                                                                                                MEMBER