SRI G.K. RATH, HON’BLE PRESIDENT … The case in brief is that, the complainant being a cultivator had availed a loan for cultivation of potato through Kissan Credit Card with the OP Bank for Rs.50,000/- on dt.23.12.2005 and she repaid Rs.50,000/- and renewed the loan on 27.02.2007. She contends that, due to minimum rain the potato crop failed in the current year and she could not repay the loan amount and interest in time. She further contended that, as per Govt of India guidelines under the Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme 2008 she is eligible for debt waiver/relief scheme. She alleged that the OP.s are failed to provide necessary service to her and she was confident that from 2008 to 06.08.16 her KCC a/c must have been closed. The OP.s did not inform her within the year 2008 to July 2016 about the status of her account but they raised the loan amount to Rs.1,46,774/- arbitrarily. She also alleged that the OP.s forcibly recovered Rs.1,46,774/- from the retirement benefit fund of her husband on dt.06.08.2016. Her husband being an employee of OP bank retired on 30.04.16. The complainant submitted that the OP.s charged 12.5% interest p.a. to her KCC loan account which violates the provisions of R.B.I. and NABARD, wherein quote- “interest claims should not be excess of the original amount of principal disbursed”. So forcibly recover of loan amount with high interest is illegal and against the principles of R.B.I. She also averred that the cause of action arouse on 16.05.16 when the OP.2 & 3 claiming loan + interest as Rs.1,43,168/-, hence the forum has jurisdiction to handle the case. Hence she prayed before the forum to direct the OP.s to pay the recovered Rs.1,43,168/- along with Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation and Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation.
2. The counsel for OP.s filed his counter and averred that, the complainant availed a KCC loan of Rs.50,000/- for cultivation of sugarcane with a condition that Mr Ramnath Satapathy shall be the guarantor who working as cashier cum clerk under the OP bank. The loan was disbursed to her on 23.12.2005 and due date of payment was 31.03.2007. The complainant renewed the loan on 27.02.2007. As per the Debt Relief circular issued by the Govt. of India, the loan account of complainant could not be treated as overdue since the complainant had renewed the loan on 27th Feb’2007. The husband of complainant being working in UGB, Kathargoda Branch is well aware of the guidelines of Govt. under the DW and DRS 2008 and the loan was not eligible to get the benefit, for which he had not filed any objection or grievance before the bank within the stipulated period of 31.07.2009. At the time of retirement of her husband he had given in writing addressed to the Regional Manager OP.2 with a request to deduct the loan dues from his terminal benefit. Accordingly the bank has recovered the loan amount of Rs.1,36,274/- from the terminal benefit with an intimation to Sri Ramnath Satpathy vide letter no.PER/1141 dt.25.07.2016. As per terms of loan agreement the borrower and guarantor are jointly and severally liable for repayment of loan amount, hence Sri Satpathy paid the loan outstanding without any objection. He also contends that the forum has no territorial jurisdiction and the same also barred by limitation, hence prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
3. The counsel for complainant has filed copy of documents/annexure as per his list along with affidavit to support his claim. The counsel for OP.s filed nothing except his counter. Case heard from both parties and the submissions considered.
4. It reveals from the record that, the complainant being a small cultivator had availed a loan for cultivation of potato of Rs.50,000/- during the year 2005 and repaid the same during the year 2007. She further renewed the loan during the year 2007 and due to erratic rain she failed the crop and could not able to repay the loan amount with interest to the OP.s. It is pertinent to mention here that the husband of the complainant was working as an employee under the OP.no.3 during the period of disbursement of the said loan, who also put his signature as guarantor of the said loan agreement. The main contention of complainant is that despite coming under the Debt Waiver & Debt Relief scheme of Govt. of India the OP.s forcefully recovered Rs.1,43,168/- from the retirement benefit of her husband during his relinquishment. Hence she contends that there is deficiency in service and unfair practices on the part of OP.s, so claimed compensation and cost for her mental and financial losses.
5. The complainant at the time of the instant complaint has filed an interim relief petition to allow exparte orders. On perusing the prima facie documents, the forum finds excess collection by the OP.s, hence has pleased to pass an interlocutory after heard from both the parties, wherein this forum passed directions to the OP.s to credit Rs.43,168/- in to the account of husband of complainant out of the entire claim and the interim order was issued with a typical error being set exparte on the part of OP.s.
6. However the counsel for OP.s entered his appearance as per calls to contend on the point of jurisdiction, limitation and maintainability of the present claim. He also averred that, the complainant is not coming under the scheme and she is not the real consumer under the Act, hence prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
7. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing we came to conclusion that, no doubt the counsel for complainant vehemently urged that the complainant is coming under the Debt Waiver & Debt Relief scheme 2007 of Govt. of India, wherein the Govt has stipulated some restriction for small and marginal farmers and who should have land for 05.00 Ac or below and the complainant is a owner of 05 Ac of land, hence she is entitled for the said scheme of Govt. But perusing the entire pros and cons of the case we found that no doubt the Govt of India has notified the scheme for the small and marginal farmers but was stipulated for One year i.e. upto 29.02.2008 and will be applicable only to the small and marginal farmers. In the instant case it is seen that the OP.s bank recovered the outstanding dues from the husband of the complainant and it is also found that the husband of complainant is not made as necessary party in the case. The forum also lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case as the complainant also not made party to local U.G.Bank, Nabarangpur in the case.
8. However we have considered the respective contentions advanced by the parties and allowed the case partly and ordered,
ORDER
i. The OP.s are hereby directed to pay the excess recovered amount of Rs.46,774/- (Rupees Forty six thousand Seven hundred seventy four only) and the same shall credited into the account of husband of complainant, inter alia to pay Rs.4000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. The said order shall be complied by OP.s ignoring the interim order passed earlier by this forum.
ii. The complainant has liberty to knock the door of competent court/forum/ombudsman to claim her rest claims.
iii. All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the award amount shall carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Order pronounced in the open forum on this the 25th day of Oct' 2017.
sd/- sd/- sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT,DCDRF,
(Sri R.S.Nayak) (Smt M.Padhi) (Sri G.K.Rath)
