This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 03-03-11 in the presence of Sri P.V. Ramana, advocate for the complainant and of Sri G. Erukala Reddy, advocate for OP, upon perusing the material on record, upon 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 U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking waiver of gold loan under Debt Waiver Scheme, 2008 and Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.18,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses.

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

     The complainant is a small farmer.   The complainant availed loan of RS.45,000/- on 01-02-07 by pledging gold ornaments vide AGL 2006/2719.   The Government of India declared the all agricultural loans and gold loans announced waiver in the year 2008.   The opposite party failed to apply the scheme to the complainant and is trying to sell away the gold ornaments by way of auction.   The conduct of the opposite party amounted to deficiency of service.

3.     The opposite party field version/affidavit and its contents are as follows:

    The complainant is not a consumer within the purview of the C.P. Act.   The amount eligible for debt waiver or debt relief as the case may be shall comprise of Clause (a) in the case of short term production loan, the amount of such loan together with applicable interest (i)  disbursed upto March 31, 2007 and over due as on December, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February, 29^th 2008.   As per the Debt Relief Scheme the over due date is 31-12-07.  The subject loan was taken on 01-02-07 and becomes over due by                    31-01-08.   Therefore, the complaint is not eligible to claim benefits under the said scheme.  

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

5.     Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are,

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. If so, to what relief?

6.  POINTS.1&2:-  

        As seen from Ex.A-1 the complainant obtained a sum of Rs.45,000/- on 01-02-07 vide AGL 2006/2719.  The opposite party has not denied about the complainant status as a small farmer.   Hence it has to be presumed that the complainant is a small farmer.  The relevant portion in the guidelines issued under the debt relief scheme, 2008 are detailed hereunder,

1. Introduction:
   1. The Finance Minster, in his Budget speech for 2008-09, announced a Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme for farmers.
   2. Guidelines for implementation of the Scheme are given below.

1. SCOPE:
   1. The scheme will cover direct agricultural loans extended to marginal and small farmers’ and ‘other farmers’ by Scheduled Commercial Banks, Regional Rural Banks, Cooperative Credit Institutions (including Urban Cooperative Banks) and Local Area Banks (herein after referred to compendiously as “lending institutions”) as indicated in the Guidelines.
   2. The scheme shall come into force with immediate effect.
2. 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.
   3. ________
   4. _______
   5. Marginal Farmer means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land up to 1 hectare (2.5 acres).
   6. Small farmer means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and upto 2 hectares (5 acres)
   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).

Explanation:

1. ________
2. _______
3. In case of a farmer who has obtained investment credit for allied activities where the principal loan amount does not exceed Rs.50,000/-, he would be classified as “small and marginal farmer” and, where the principal amount exceeds Rs.50,000/- he would be classified as ‘other farmer’, irrespective in both cases of the size of the land holding, if any.

4.   Eligible amount:

         4.1   The amount eligible for debt waiver or debt relief, as                  the case may be (hereinafter referred to as the                          eligible amount) shall comprise of:

          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.

5. Debt 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 per cent of the         ‘eligible amount’ subject to the condition that the      farmer pays the balance of 75 percent of the eligible    amount’;

7.     The opposite party did not specifically contend that the complainant is not a small farmer.   It can therefore be said that the complainant is a small farmer as such he is entitled to the benefit under Debt Waiver Scheme, 2008.  Therefore, this point is answered in favour of complainant.

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 31-12-07.     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 and its non application amounted to deficiency of service.

9.     The in-action of the opposite party in not applying the said scheme to the complainant in our consideration was due to the language applied in it and as such the complainant is not entitled to any further amount as compensation or costs.

8.    In the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to write off the gold loan of                  the complainant.

2. The claim of the complainant for compensation and legal                   expenses is negatived.

3. Each party has to bear their costs.

        Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 16th day of              March, 2011.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral evidence is adduced on either side

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party :   NIL

                                                                                           PRESIDENT