By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite party to write off the entire loan due of the Complainant's KCC Loan No.0827840006622 and also to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint in brief :- The Complainant availed 2 Agricultural Loan during 2000 from the Opposite Party. Due to loss of crop and drought, she could not pay back said loans. On 29.09.2004, the Opposite Party bank, rescheduled said loan and converted said loans as a KCC loan. The new KCC loan with No.0827840006622 dated 29.09.2004 was for Rs.2,00,000/-. On 28.09.2005, the entire loan amount became due. In 2007, the Central Government declared Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme. The Complainant was eligible for writing off the entire loan. But the Opposite party had written off only Rs.1,50,447/- on 09.07.2008 from the outstanding due of Rs.2,35,421/-. So the Complainant gave a request to the bank to write off the entire loan as per scheme but no reply is given. On 05.11.2013, the bank sent a notice to the Complainant to pay the entire due. So the Complainant gave a complaint to the Chief Minister, but no reply received. On 03.06.2014, the Opposite party sent a lawyer notice to the Complainant demanding to pay Rs.1,49,239/- with interest from 01.04.2014 towards the said loan due. The Complainant is a small farmer under the said scheme and the Opposite party is liable to write off the entire loan and the Complainant is entitled for full waiver. The act of Opposite party is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party. Hence the complaint.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to Opposite party and Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of Opposite Party, the Opposite Party stated that the KCC loan No.0827840006222 was not a rescheduled loan and the Complainant availed the loan on various agriculture operations as working capital loan mentioned in the application for loan and not entitled for full waiver under debt relief scheme. The Complainant was not eligible for full debt waiver benefit. The eligible amount as per clause 3(3.2) of ARDRS Scheme 2008 is credited to the account of Complainant. This Opposite party had filed suit before the Munsiff Court Kalpetta to recover the amount and the Civil Court is the proper Forum the decide the dispute. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the forum raised the following points for considerations.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A4 and confronted document is marked as Exts.B1 to B4. The Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and the Opposite Party is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B5 is marked. Ext.A1 is the KCC loan pass book No.KCC 6622, Ext.A2 are the payment receipts and Ext.A3 is the notice issued by the Opposite party bank and Ext.A4 is the lawyer notice issued by the Opposite party to the Complainant demanding the loan due amount. Ext.B1 is the agreement and deed of hypothecation of loan, Exts.B2, B3 and B4 are the acknowledgement of debt and security. Ext.B5 is the KCC loan application form dated 29.09.2004. Ext.B6 is the sanction memorandum, Ext.B7 series are the lawyer notice issued by the Opposite Party bank to the Complainant and its acknowledgment card. Ext.B8 is the acknowledgment statement, Ext.B9 is the plaint copy, Ext.B10 is the Debt Waiver Scheme and Ext.B11 is the clarification by the Government. The Ext.A1 document is the pass book of KCC loan 6622 issued on 29.09.2004 and Ext.B5 is the loan application form dated 29.09.2004. On perusal of Ext.A1 and Ext.B5 the Forum found that the loan is granted in the year 2004 and it is not a rescheduled loan. The case of Complainant is that the loan KCC 6622 is a rescheduled loan. But the Complainant did not prove that it is a rescheduled loan. Ext.B7 series are the documents showing that the Opposite Party bank had send lawyer notice to the Complainant and thereafter filed suit before the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta for the recovery of the amount. The suit is filed subsequent to the filing of this complaint but the subject matter is the same. Admittedly, the bank had written off Rs.1,50,337/- on 09.07.2008 out of the total outstanding due of Rs.2,35,421/- as on that date. The Complainant demanded for full waiver but the bank send notice to the Complainant to pay the entire balance due. After filing of this complaint, the bank had filed a suit before Munsiff Court, Kalpetta for the recovery of Rs.1,73,893/- being the outstanding balance due on the account. Here the question to be decided is whether the Complainant is entitled for full waiver as per the Central Government Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. As per Ext.B5 loan application, the Complainant is having cultivation of 3 acres of land and he is a 'small farmer' as defined in clause 3.6 of the scheme. As per clause 3.7 sub clause 4, Kisan Credit Card loan would also covered under scheme subject to guidelines. The eligible amount as per clause 4 of the scheme shall comprise of (a) In case of short term production loan, the amount of such loan together with interest disbursed up to March 31, 2007 and over due as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29- 2008, restructed and rescheduled by banks in 2004 and 2006 and up to 31st March, 2007. (b) In clause of instalment loan, the instalments of such loan over due together with interest is eligible. As per Ext.B5 KCC loan application, the KCC loan availed by the Complainant is seen granted for maintenance of 3 acre of Coffee, maintenance of 1000 arecanut, maintenance of 1000 Pepper, maintenance of Cows, working capital for non farmer sector and for family maintenance. The loan availed by the Complainant is a short term production loan and not investment loan. It is seen availed for maintenance of existing crops and working capital. As per the version of Opposite Party, the loan availed by the Complainant is on various agricultural operations as working capital loan. Hence it is not entitled for full waiver as per clause 3(3.2) of the scheme which states that 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.1,00,000/- for traditional and non traditional plantations and horticulture. So the loan availed is not for developing plantation but to meet the working capital requirement of on existing plantation and its maintenance. If so the maximum entitled amount is limited to Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest. The bank had already written off Rs.1,50,337/- being the eligible amount together with interest as per guidelines. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) 28881 of 2008 (L) dated 30.01.2009 verdicted that the maximum eligible amount in case of a KCC loan availed for working capital by a small farmer is Rs.1,00,000/- (together with interest) as per guidelines and as per clause 3(3.2) of the scheme 2008. (Central Government Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008) As per Ext.B11 clarification on the scheme dated 05.06.2008, clause 19 of the clarification, the question is how to extend benefit of the scheme for KCC, the answer is all components of KCC are eligible for relief only the over due portion as at 31.12.2007 remaining unrecoverable as on 29.02.2008 is eligible for relief. Here to what extend the waiver can be given is not stated and no clarification is given to that aspect. As per clause 3(3.2) of Debt waiver scheme, it is clear that the waiver limit is Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest. Hence by the over all evaluation of the case and documents, the Forum is of the opinion that the bank had already given the eligible amount of waiver to the account of the Complainant and there is no reason to interfere. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed having no merits. There is no deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled to get cost and Compensation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of March 2016.
Date of Filing:01.06.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Sabari. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party
OPW1. Chandran. Manager, Canara bank, Meenangadi.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1 Kisan Credit Card.
A2(1) Receipt. dt:29.09.2004.
A2(2) Receipt. dt:29.09.2014.
A3. Notice. dt:05.11.2011.
A4. Letter. dt:03.06.2014.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
B1. Copy of Agreement deed of Hypothecation for Kisan Credit Card.
B2. Copy of Acknowledgment of Debt and Security. dt:03.04.2013.
B3. Copy of Acknowledgment of Debt and Security dt:03.05.2010.
B4. Copy of Acknowledgment of Debt and Security. dt:11.05.2007.
B5. Copy of Application Cum Appraisal Form For Kisan Credit Card Scheme (KCCS)
B6. Copy of Proforma of Letter to Communicate the Sanction of Credit facilities to An
Applicant/Borrower.
B7(1) Copy of Letter. dt:03.06.2014.
B7(2) Acknowledgment.
B8. Statement of Account for General Advances for the period 29.09.2004 -23.07.2015.
B9 Copy of Plaint. dt:30.07.2015.
B10. Copy of Letter. dt:23.05.2008.
B11. Copy of FAQs- Clarifications on the Scheme guidelines: (5 6 2008)
