Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/380

SABARI I M - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE CANARA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

BABU P POTHENCODE

05 Jul 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.380/2016

JUDGMENT DATED : 05.07.2016

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.186/2015 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta order dated: 29.03.2016)

 

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.V.V.JOSE                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT

Sabari.I.M

W/o.Rajeevan, Sabari Estate,

Koodathummel,

Kaniyambetta.P.O

Wayanad – 673 124

 

(By Adv.Sri.Babu.P)

Vs

RESPONDENT

The Canara Bank,

Meenangadi Branch,

Rep.by its Manager,

Meenangadi.P.O

Wayanad

 

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

        Appellant is the complainant in CC.No.186/2015 in the CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta. This appeal is filed along with an application to condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal. As per the allegations in the complaint she had availed two agricultural loans from the opp.party’ bank during the year 2000. Due to crop loss and drought she could not repay the loans. On 28/09/2005 the loans became due and in 2007 the Central Government introduced Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme. The complainant was eligible for waiver of the entire loan. But the opposite party had written off only Rs.1,50,447/- from the outstanding due of Rs.2,35,421/-. Though the complainant gave written request to the bank to write off the entire loan, no reply was given. The above act of the opp.party amounts to deficiency in service. It is further alleged that the opp.party bank had converted the loans into KCC loan in 2004 with a view to deny benefit of the scheme to the complainant. In the version opp.party denied the allegations in the complaint After recording evidence the consumer forum dismissed the complaint and the aggrieved complainant has preferred this appeal. The learned counsel who appeared for the appellant was heard on admission.

        2.     Admittedly, amounts were due to the opp.party bank under two agricultural loans. So the relationship created is one of debtor and creditor between the complainant and the opp.party and in the matter of repayment of the loan no deficiency in service can arise. It is an obligation undertaken by the complainant as per contract. In the present case the complainant claims the benefit of a debt relief scheme formulated by the Government of India. The Government of India is not a party to the proceedings. The debt relief is to be granted by the appropriate authority constituted under the scheme. In Kerala also, Agricultural Debt Relief Commission is appointed to go into such claims. It is upon the recommendation of the competent authority the opp.party would be in a position to write off agricultural debts. In granting debt relief no element of service is involved. So the consumer court has no jurisdiction to go into questions such as eligibility for debt relief which is a concession granted by the Government of India. Absolutely no consumer dispute is involved in such matters. It is for the complainant to approach the appropriate authority to claim relief. The consumer forum is not the appropriate authority to grant debt reliefs. In the above view of the matter it is unnecessary to consider the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It is unnecessary to admit the appeal for detailed hearing. In the circumstances, both the appeal and application to condone the delay in filing the appeal are dismissed.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

V.V.JOSE                         : MEMBER

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.380/2016

JUDGMENT DATED : 05.07.2016

 

                                                                   BE/