This complaint  having come up for final hearing before us on 03.09.2014  on perusal of the material records  and on hearing the  arguments of  Thiru. M.Murugaiyan, Counsel for the complainant  and Thiru. K.Rajendran, the counsel for the opposite parties  and having stood  before us for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following

By President, Thiru..K.Anbazhagan, B.A.B.L., 

                       This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act 1986.

2) The brief facts of the case of the complainant: -

The complainanthas obtained agricultural loan of Rs.10,000/- on 17.08.2000 from thefirst opposite party bank.Before that the complainanthasobtained many previous agricultural loanand the same wasdischarged by him.Due to loss in agriculture, this loan amountwas not paidand discharged. The Government has declared “Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme 2008” for the benefitof the agriculturistthose who were not able to payand discharged theagricultural debt.Asper the above said scheme the complainant is entitled to get theentire waiver of said agriculturalloan andhe need not pay any amount tothe bank.The complainantdefined as “Kuru Vivasayi” as the perabove said scheme.Thelist ofagriculturist preparedas per beneficiary of the said scheme and the name of the complainant is also found in eligible listThe opposite party has issued a notice through their Advocatedated 22.09.2011 and demanded to the said agricultural loan amount without giving any benefit under this scheme to the complainant. The claim made in the notice is illegal.There isnegligence and deficiency of duty on the part of the opposite parties.The first opposite party has not returned documents given to them.The complainant prayed the reliefs to direct the opposite parties to waive theentire agricultural loan under the “Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme 2008” framed by the Government of Indiaand to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towardspain and sufferings and damages andwith costs.

It is true that the complainant has obtained the agriculture loan amount of Rs.10,000/- under KCC loans from the opposite party on 17.08.2000 and he has executed a necessary documents in favour of the opposite party.After obtainingloan the complainant has not paid the loan amount to the opposite party as per agreement.He is a wilful defaulter.In para 3 of the petition the complainant has to prove that entire loan amount has wiped out under agriculture relief scheme 2008.His loan account No.008803400000516.As per Government of India norms he is entitled to only Rs.20,000/- relief under Government of India Debt Relief Scheme.The Bank has given reliefRs.20,000/- to the complainant account on 31.07.2008.The balance amount of Rs.6369/- to be paid to the opposite party.But the complainant has not paid any amount to the opposite party.Therefore, he is liable to pay Rs.12,218/- as on 13.09.2011.Therefore entire loan amount has not been wiped out as per the agriculture Debt Relief Scheme 2008.The complainant has not given any proper explanation that the entire loan amount has been wiped out by the Government of India.

5) In contention in para 4 of the complainant are not true.The list has mentioned only Rs.20,000/- the complainant has entitled to relief under Debt Relief Scheme.It is true that the first opposite party has issued a notice to the complainant through its counsel to pay the balance amount to the opposite party.But, he has not paid the balance amount to the opposite party.After receipt of this notice this opposite party has given proper explanation to the complainant and satisfied the explanationgiven by the opposite party.There is no negligence on thepart of opposite party.There is no deficiency of service in the above case.It is not correct that the opposite party searching the documents for hand over to the complainant.The complainant is liable to Rs.12,218/- as on 13.09.2011.Subsequent interest is also due to opposite party. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6) The pointsfor determination in this case are:

                          1) Whether  there is  any deficiency in service  on the  part of the  opposite

                                 parties?

                         2) To what other  relief the complainant is entitled to ?

                    7) POINT No.1:   The complainant has  filed proof affidavit as well as written arguments and marked  Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. The written arguments the complainant  has stated  that he is  having only 52 Ares  of punja land.  The  agricultural  loan amount of Rs.10,000/- has obtained  on 17.08.2000 and it was  not able to  repay the  loan amount due  to failure of crops.  The complainant claims waiver of entire loan amount under this scheme.  On the other hand  the  opposite party has also filed written arguments. On perusal of written arguments on the side of the opposite parties that the complainant is wilful defaulter and he is not  repaid agricultural loan amount of Rs.10,000/- obtained  on  17.08.2000.  with accrued  interest there on.  Survey numbers and  extent of the land were given by the complainant.  Now the complainant says that he is  owner of  52 ares of land to claim  benefit under the scheme in the year 2008 extent  of land is necessary.  The complainant had given wrong information before this Forum.  For that as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India  that the complainant  is entitled to the  reliefs only at Rs. 20,000/-.  Accordingly, the opposite party had given relief Rs.20,000/-  to the complainant but the agricultural loan outstanding as  on 31.07.2008.  Still  that the complainant has to pay Rs. 6369/- to the opposite party and he has not paid  the said balance amount.  As  on 13.09.2011  that the complainant  is liable to pay Rs. 12,218/- to the opposite party.  The complainant has not given any  proper explanation for the waiver of entire  loan amount that  is more than Rs.20,000/-. As per the particulars given by the complainant  to the bank  that the bank has worked out the debt relief scheme and found that he is eligible  to get relief on Rs.20,000/- and the balance to be  paid by him to the bank.    Under the above  said circumstances the complainant is not a consumer and there no negligent on the part of the opposite party and there is no deficiency  in service.  Ex.A.2 filed by the complainant  cannot taken in to  consideration because  after the year 1996 property purchased in the name of the complainant  will not included in the patta pass book.  The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complaint.   Hence  prayed to dismiss the complaint.

                     8) On the side of the opposite party Ex.B.1  alone marked.  Ex.A.1 is Xerox copy of  the patta pass book issued to the complainant.  As per Ex.A.1 is found the  petitioner holding land is 0.52 Ares.  Ex.A.2  is legal notice issued by the Advocate appearing  for the opposite party  bank dated 22.09.2011 by which the bank has demanded  balance amount of Rs. 12,143/- with subsequent interest.  Ex.B.1 is statement of accounts pertaining   to the complainant  agricultural loan  account commencing from  12.09.2011 to  13.09.2011.  On perusal of Ex.B.1 as on 31.07.2008 waiver of loan amount  to an extent of Rs.20,000/- was given credit to the complainant and the balance on that day  was Rs.6369/-.  The opposite party had given benefit as per norms prescribed in the scheme declared by the Government of India.  The learned counsel appearing  for the opposite party bank and also filed a guidelines  issued by the Ministry of Finance and Department of Financial Services dated 28.05.2008 in respect of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008  Implementation Circular 1/2008.  The following  condition have  specified.

                      (a) The loan amount have disbursed between March 31,1997 and  March 31,2007.

                    (b) Overdue on December 31,2007  and

                    ( c) remaining  unpaid until February 29,2008 will be  eligible  for debt waiver/debt relief under the Scheme.

Illustrations also had been given the  realization  clause (iv) reveals;

                   “ A single  eligible borrower may have more than one agricultural loan account.  The overdue loans  in all these  accounts will be  independently covered under the  Scheme.  The OTS Relief of 25% ( relief up to Rs.20,000/- or 25%, whichever is higher, in 237 stressed districts) is also to be separately applied in the case of crop loans and investment loans”

                    As per the above  said norms that the complainant is entitled the highest reliefs  is Rs.20,000/- alone and accordingly the bank had given the benefit to the complainant. The remaining balance amount has to be paid by the complainant.  That the complainant has not  proved before  this Forum that he is  entitled relief for the entire  loan amount including interest.   However, in the explanation given by the opposite party and the norms prescribed for  such waiver by the Government of India clearly  goes to show that the complainant is entitled to relief for  only Rs.20,000/-  Therefore, that the opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service.  This Forum do not  found any mistake in the benefit  extended to the complainant under this said scheme.

                 9)  POINT NO.2:   In the  result,  the complaint stand dismissed without costs.

      This order was dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by me on this  16^th   day of  October    2014.