DATE OF FILING : 01.03.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.56/2010

Between

Complainants : 1. Vilasini Vijayanadha Pillai,

Meledathu House,

Prakash P.O,

Udayagiri,

Idukki District.

2. Vijayanadha Pillai E.S,

Edattayil House,

Prakash P.O,

Udayagiri,

Idukki District.

(Both by Advs: K.M.Sanu & Prince.J.Pananal)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The General Manager,

Idukki District Co-operative Bank Limited

No.4334,

Head Office, Idukki Colony P.O,

Cheruthony – 685 602,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: C.K.Babu)

2. K.T.Mathew,

Authorised Officer,

The Idukki District Co-operative Bank Limited

No.4334,

Head Office, Idukki Colony P.O,

Cheruthony – 685 602,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainants are husband and wife. They availed a loan of Rs. 2 Lakhs from the Ist opposite party's Thankamany branch on 20.03.2006 as loan Account No.OLCC-15. The said loan availed by the complainants was for various cultivations in the agricultural land of the Ist complainant, having an extent of 1.57 acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.376/1 and 376/5 of Vathikudy Village. The said property is well improved with cardamom, pepper, plantains and other vegetable cultivations. While the complainants availed the loan, the loan application and other documents were filled by the officials of the bank, which were not read by the complainants. Since the loan availed is for agricultural purposes, the opposite party has been requested to surrender the patta of the said land, for the audit purpose of the Ist opposite party. The Ist opposite party's  officials are also required to put the complainant's signature on may printed and non-printed papers, which were not duly filled. Thereafter the complainants remitted money in the loan account many a times. Because of destruction in the agriculture and low market value of the agricultural products, the complainants were not able to repay the loan amount promptly. Then the Ist opposite party's officials informed the complainants that they will initiate necessary proceedings to recover the loan amount. Since the loan had availed for agricultural purposes, the Ist complainant has filed an application to the Agricultural Debt Relief Commission for getting assistance to the repayment of the loan and the same was duly informed to the Ist opposite party. Being so, the opposite parties filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha as MC No.24/2010 against the complainants by seeking assistance to take possession of the the Ist complainant's property as per the provisions of SRFAESI Act. Eventhough the complainants filed a written objection in the said petition, the CJM allowed the petition and a commissioner advocate is appointed to take possession of the Ist complainant's property on or before 1/03/2010. The complainants never pledged the patta with the opposite parties. The rules of the said patta does not entitle the opposite parties to receive the patta as a security from the complainants which is evidently on the foot note of the said patta. Since the Ist complainant's property is an agricultural land, no security interest can be created in the said property by the Ist opposite party as per Section 31(i) of the SRFAESI Act. The opposite parties can proceed against the complainants as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and its Rules, which is less expensive than the present proceedings. Moreover, the opposite parties are not having any right to proceed against the complainants as they very well aware about the application filed by the Ist complainant before the Agricultural Debt Relief Commission. So the present proceedings for eviction and taking possession is illegal and the opposite parties purposefully hide out the fact before the CJM Court, Thodupuzha that the Ist complainant's property is an agricultural land. So this petition is filed for directing the opposite parties to drop the proceedings against the complainants as per the SRFAESI Act 2002 and also for compensation.
 

2. The Ist opposite party filed a written version stating that as per Section 34 and 35 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 specifically bars jurisdiction of any civil court or other authority. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. The complainants had availed the loan for the purpose of marriage of their daughter with the security of patta No.1341. The loanee has sufficient knowledge with regard to the loan security and the execution of the documents. The loan was disbursed in the year 2006. Until this time the complainants had no complaint with regard to the security documents and its execution. The complainants were purposefully evading repayment of the loan though they had sufficient means to repay the same. Action under SRFAESI Act 2002 was initiated against the complainants for non-payment of the loan amount. The Ist opposite party has initiated proceedings against the complainant under SRFAESI Act. When that being so the complainants ought to have preferred appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The complainants could get copy of ledger at any time on request. However a copy of the statement of accounts is produced along with this written version. The petition is filed as experimental and may be dismissed.
 

3. Before going to the evidence, the matter was heard from both sides. As per the complainant, the loan availed is for agricultural purpose and so the opposite party is barred from proceedings against the complainant as per the SRFAESI Act, because it is an agricultural loan. A petition is filed by the complainant before the Agricultural Debt Relief Commission for getting assistance to the repayment of the loan and the matter is already informed to the Ist opposite party. But the opposite parties filed a petition before the CJM Court, Thodupuzha as MC No. 24/2010 against the complainants by seeking assistance to take possession of the the Ist complainant's property as per the provisions of SRFAESI Act. As per the opposite party, the property given by the complainants is for the security of the loan availed by them and the purpose of the loan was the financial assistance for the marriage of their daughter. The proceedings against the complainants has been initiated under SRFAESI Act and the complainants ought to have preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

4. The complainant availed an agricultural loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from the opposite party bank, but as per the loan application of the complainant, produced by the opposite party shows that the purpose of the loan is “the marriage of their daughter”. The proceedings as per SRFAESI Act is already initiated against the complainants by the opposite party bank and the copy of the order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha in MC No. 24/2010 shows the same. So we think that already the matter is pending before a judicial authority and the proceedings are also initiated from there. So it is not proper to interfere this matter for the same reason eventhough the property is an agricultural land. The complainants can approach appropriate authority for further remedy.
 

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainants.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2010

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

 Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainants :

Nil

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainants:

Nil

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil