IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of July, 2016
Filed on 19.10.2012
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.338/2012
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Louis Chacko The Federal Bank Ltd.
Pazhayaparambil House Nedumudy, Thekkekara Branch
Pulinkunnu P.O. represented by its Manager
Alappuzha Thekkekara P.O., Alappuzha
(By Adv. K. George) (By Adv. Cheriyan Kuruvila)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant had taken an agricultural loan as account No.11545500009221 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 11.1.2007,. The said loan amount to be adjusted in the agricultural debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The said agricultural loan was overdue as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid. The said loan is eligible and covered under the agricultural debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The complainant is entitled to get the benefits to the said Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. That the complainant had requested to the opposite party bank to get the benefits. But it was rejected and sent for revenue recovery proceedings also. On 24.9.2012 an intimation has been given by the Tahsildar, Kuttanad to appear before him to settle the loan amount of Rs.74,837/- with RR commission. The service rendered by the opposite party to the complainant in the above respect is suffering from deficiency. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
As per the guide lines for the implementation of the Debt Relief Scheme of the year 2008 a farmer who is aggrieved on ground that his name is not included in the list published by the bank shall make a representation to the Grievance Redressal Officer of the lending Bank/institution and every such representation shall be disposed of within a period of 30 days by the grievance Redressal Officer. The complainant didn’t prefer any such representation to the Grievance Redressal Officer, but preferred the complaint before this Forum after 4 years. The delayed complaint instituted is not based on any genuine reasons but is preferred with the objective to delay or defeat the RR proceedings initiated by the bank to recover the amount due and payable by the complainant on account of the loan transaction. The loan was availed by the complainant on 12.1.2007 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the cultivation of his property having an extent of 5.72 Ares and the amount was payable with interest within a period of 36 months. In order to get the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme of the year 2008, the loan should have become overdue as on 31.12.2007 and shall remain unpaid till 29.2.2008 so as to consider the borrower eligible to get the benefits under the scheme. As stated above, the complainant has availed the loan on 12.1.2007 and was repayable within a period of 36 months. Therefore the loan didn’t become overdue as on 31.12.2007 and hence the benefit cannot be extended to the complainant. In view of the fact that the loan was not overdue, the complainant was not eligible to get the benefits envisaged under the scheme and hence his name was not included in the list of eligible farmers. Since the complainant has landed property having an extent of more than 5 Acres he is not a marginal or small farmer as classified under the scheme declared by the Reserve Bank of India. The complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. The opposite party was examined as RW1 and documents were marked as Exts.B1 to B4.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. Point No.1:- The first contention raised by the opposite party is that the complaint is barred by limitation. According to the opposite party the Debt Relief Scheme came into effect in the year 2008 and the benefits were enlarged to the farmers and concluded on or before 30.6.2008. The complainant filed the complaint after four years to avail the benefits of the scheme announced in the year 2008. As per Section 24 of the act since it is not filed within 2 years of the date on which cause of action for the complaint has arisen the complaint is to be dismissed. But according to the complainant the cause of action of the complaint arose on 24.9.2012 when he received the notice under the Revenue Recovery Act initiated by the Tahsildar. Since no contra evidence adduced by the opposite party the contention of the opposite party is not sustainable. Hence the complaint is found maintainable.
7. Point Nos.2 & 3:- It is an admitted fact that the complainant had taken an agricultural loan for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 11.1.2007. According to the complainant the said agricultural loan was overdue on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid, he is eligible and covered under the agricultural waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The contention of the opposite party is that complainant is not eligible to get the benefits of the debt relief scheme. As per the guidelines of the implementation of Debt Relief Scheme of the year 2008 a farmer who is aggrieved on the ground that his name is not included in the list published by the bank should make a representation to Grievance Redressal Officer of the lending bank. The complainant did not prefer any representation to the Grievance Redressal Officer. Apart from that complainant availed the loan for the cultivation of property having an extent of 5.72 Acres and since the complainant has landed property more than 5 acres he is not a marginal or small farmer as classified under the scheme to claim the benefits. Moreover the complainant availed the loan on 12.1.2007 and was repayable within a period of 36 months. Therefore the loan did not become overdue as on 31.12.2007 and hence the benefit could not have extended to the complainant. So the question to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled to get the benefit under the Debt Relief Scheme of the year 2008. The Debt Relief Scheme is produced by the opposite party marked as Ext.B1. As per clause 2.1 – “The Scheme will cover direct agricultural loans extended to ‘marginal and small farmers’ and ‘other farmers’ by Scheduled Commercial Banks, Regional Rural Banks, Co-operative Credit Institutions (including Urban Co-operative Banks) and Local Area Banks (hereinafter referred to compendiously as “lending institutions”) as indicated in the Guide lines.” As per clause “3.1- ‘Direct agricultural Loans’ means Short Term Production Loans and Investment Loans provided directly to farmers for agricultural purposes.” In this case complainant availed the loan for 3 years. Ext.B3 shows that complainant has executed an agreement with the opposite party for agricultural loan for Rs.50,000/- which was repayable with interest within a period of 36 months. As per clause 3.2 short term product, so it is clear that the complainant availed the loan not for short term production loan. It is also an admitted fact that complainant had not remitted any installments. Since the loan amount is to be repaid within the period of 36 months it is an investment loan. As per clause 3.7. Explanation 3. “In the 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.” As per clause 3.7.3, the complainant whose loan amount does not exceed Rs.50,000/- classified as small and marginal farmer. Hence the contention of the opposite party is that complainant has landed property having an extent of more than 5 acres and he is not a marginal or small farmer as classified under the scheme is not sustainable. Another contention of the opposite party is that the loan did not become overdue as on 31.12.2007 and hence the benefit cannot be extended to the complainant. It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed the loan on 12.1.2007 and was repayable within a period of 36 months. The opposite party has no case that complainant has remitted any installments towards loan amount. Hence it is clear that the loan was overdue as on 31.12.2007. Since the complainant in this case committed default from the date of 12.1.2007 till 31.12.2007 it is clear that his loan amount became overdue as on 31.12.2007 and he is entitled to get the benefit under scheme. In a decision reported in 2013(1) CPR page No.72 Tamil Nadu State Commission it is stated that, the benefit of benevolent schemes cannot be denied by the officers. In the instant case, complainant being a small and marginal farmer who availed loan for Rs.50,000/- on 12.1.2007 and committed default in repayment till 31.12.2007 and remains unpaid till 29.2.2008. Hence, he is entitled to get the benefits under the Debt Relief Scheme of the year 2008.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to written off the loan amount of the complainant with the loan transaction No. 11545500009221 of the complainant. Since the primary relief is granted, no further amount as to compensation and costs allowed. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Louis Chacko (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Notice from the opposite party to the complainant dated 8.4.2011
Ext.A2 - Letter from the opposite party to the complainant dated 10.12.2010
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Thomas V.C. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Details of Debt Relief Scheme
Ext.B2 - True copy of the reporting statement for advances by Branch Managers
Ext.B3 - True copy of the agreement
Ext.B4 - Copy of the tax receipt of the complainant
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
