This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on                     03-08-11 in the presence of Sri P.V. Ramana, advocate for complainant and of Sri P.P.K. Rao, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking refund of Rs.4,40,000/- paid, together with interest and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.

2.    In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

The complainant is an agriculturist. The complainant availed two short term crop loans of Rs.2,20,000/- each on 26-02-07 from the opposite party by pledging gold ornaments vide GLAGL/01/20060308 and GLAGL/01/20060309.  Subsequently, the Government of India announced Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme, 2008 to all crop loans including gold loans. The opposite party did not apply the benefits of the said scheme to the said loan of the complainant and insisted to repay the loan amount.   The complainant discharged the entire two loan amounts of Rs.2,70,227/- each on 10-10-08 and took return of gold ornaments.   The opposite party unnecessarily collected the loan amount from the complainant against the guidelines given by the Government of India.   The opposite party also collected excess interest.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    The contention of the opposite party in brief is hereunder:

The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   The agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 covers the agricultural loans disbursed between 31-03-97 and 31-03-07, became overdue as on 31-12-07 and remained unpaid by 29-02-08.  The complainant availed gold loan on 26-02-07 and was not overdue by              31-12-07.    The complainant is not entitled to the benefits of the said Debt Waiver Scheme. The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.  There is no necessity to refund the paid amount.    In order to have wrongful gain the complainant filed this complaint with false averments. 

4.   Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked on behalf of the complainant.   No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite party.

5.    Now the points for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the benefits under Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008?
2. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation as claimed?
4. To what relief?

6.    POINTS 1 & 2:-     The complainant taking loan for agriculture on 26-02-07 by pledging gold ornaments and discharging the said loan on 10-10-08 are not in dispute.     

7.     The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is not entitled to the benefits of the Agricultural Debt Waiver And Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 as did not satisfy the conditions mentioned in                4 (1) (a) ii & iii.    Section 4 deals with eligible amount.   Section 4 (1) stipulates conditions to qualify for the eligible amount.   Section 4 (1) (a) reads as follows:

        “a) In the case of a short-term production loan, the                                amount of such loan (together with applicable interest);

                i) Disbursed up to March 31, 2007 and overdue as on                          December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until                                  February 29, 2008.

                ii) restructured and rescheduled by Banks in 2004                              and in 2006 through the special packages                                          announced by the Central Government, whether                                 overdue or not; and

                iii) restructured and rescheduled in the normal                                  course up to March 31, 2007 as per applicable RBI                             guidelines on account of natural calamities,                                       whether overdue or not”.

8.     The Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 is undoubtedly a welfare measure and announced in order to give relief to the farmers those who availed loans prior to 31-03-07 even by reconstructing and rescheduling in the year 2004 and 2006. The significance was attached to those cut off dates as fixed in guidelines in respect of its disbursal, over due and remains unpaid.   The gap in between the period of disbursal and over due is nine months only.   If the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party is accepted that one year period has to be computed from the date of sanction of loan, the loans disbursed in the month of January, February or March, 2007 could not be overdue by 31-12-07.  If that is the position, why cut off date was given in the guideline as 31-03-07.     Being a beneficial legislation a liberal approach can be made in applying those guidelines as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant.  Therefore, we opine that the complainant is entitled to the benefits of loan waiver scheme if otherwise entitled to.

9.     The complainant did not file any document to show the extent of land held by him.   The burden is on the complainant to prove whether he comes under the purview of small farmer or marginal farmer or other farmer.   The complainant-obtaining loan for the purpose of agriculture is not disputed.   In the absence of any document showing the land held by him the complainant in our considered view comes under the purview of other farmer as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant.  ‘Other farmer’ is one cultivating agricultural land of more than two hectares either as a owner or tenant or share cropper.  Explanation attached to Section 3 says that where the principle amount exceeds Rs.50,000/- he would be classified as other farmer.   In this case the complainant obtained more than Rs.50,000/- as loan for agriculture.   The complainant on both the counts i.e., holding and the amount of loan taken comes under the purview of other farmer as rightly contended by the complainant. 

1. Section 3 (I) and (2) of the said scheme defines direct agricultural loans and short term production loans and they read as follows:

1.      “Definitions:
   1. Direct Agricultural Loans means Short Term 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.
   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”.

11.    Section 6 of the said scheme deals with Debt Relief in case of other farmers and reads as follows:

“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 per cent of the ‘eligible amount’                  subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance                         of 75 percent of the eligible amount’

12.   Section 7 of said relief scheme deals with implementation.   Responsibility was on the concerned bank to prepare two separate lists covering the scheme for (1) small and marginal farmers and (2) for other farmers.   Further responsibility was cast on the concerned banks to prepare the list mentioning particulars of the land holding, the eligible amount, and the amount of debt waiver or debt relief proposed to be granted in each case and those lists have to be displayed on the notice board of the concerned bank on or before              30-06-2008.

13.   It was already observed that the complainant is entitled to the benefits of the said relief scheme as he complainant came under the purview of other farmer.   The denial of the benefits of the scheme to the complainant by the opposite party in our considered opinion amounted to deficiency of service.   Hence, these points are answered in favour of the complainant.

14.   POINT No.3:-   The Opposite Party did not apply the benefits of the said scheme to the complainant considering the conditions laid in section 4 (1).   Under those circumstances, awarding compensation is not just and proper.  We therefore answer this point against the complainant.  

15.   POINT NO.4:- In view of above findings in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to apply the benefits of the Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 to the complainant treating him as ‘other farmer’ both on the extent of loan and his holding and refund the eligible amount together with interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint (i.e, from 08-10-10) till payment.
2. The relief of compensation is rejected.
3. Each party is directed to bear their own costs.
4. The amount ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 10^th day of August, 2011.

                        MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party :   NIL

                                                                                            PRESIDENT