D.o.F:23/3/12

D.o.O:22/5/12

 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                             CC.No.77/2012

                        Dated this, the 22^nd  day of May  2012

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                 : PRESIDENT

SMT.RAMADEVI.P                       : MEMBER   

SMT.BEENA.K.G                             : MEMBER

C.K.Kunhiraman, S/oAmbu ,

Vellachal, Kannoth, PO, Eriya,

Hosdurg,Kasaragod. Dt.                                          : Complainants

 (Adv.E.Sukumaran,Hosdurg)

1.The  Manager,Hosdurg Primary Co-operative

 Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd,

Cheruvathur Branch, Po.Cheruvathur, Hosdurg,

2.The Senior Inspector/Special Sale Officer

Hosdurg Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural                 

Development Bank Ltd, Kanhangad Po ,Kasaragod.

3. The  Grievance Redressal Officer,

 Hosdurg Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural       : Opposite parties

 Development Bank Ltd, Kanhangad Po ,Kasaragod.

(Ops 1 to 3 Adv.Vipin .T.Jose,Hosdurg)

4.The Assistant Manager, Reserve Bank of India,           

 Rural Planning & Credit Department,

Bekary Junction,   P.B.No.6507, Thiruvananthapuram.    :

5.The General Manager(Convener)

 Canara Bank, State Level Bankers Committees Cell

Circle Office, Canara Bank Bldg PB No.159

M.G. Road, Trivandrum

ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT

               Complainant is an agriculturist who availed agricultural loan from  the Ist opposite party Bank.  But successive natural calamities and fall in price of  agrarian products resulted in  crop loss and complainant could not repay the amount.  Therefore the bank has initiated recovery proceedings against the property of the complainant.  According to  the  complainants his loan ought to have been waived as per the Agriculture Debt Waiver Relief Scheme  formulated by the Central Govt. in 2008.  But opposite party did not give the benefits of the said scheme to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

2.    According to opposite parties the complainant has already been granted the eligible benefits under the ADWR Scheme and apart from that  he has approached the  Hon’ble High Court of Kerala  in the year 2006 and  he could not comply with the directions of the judgment of the  Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dt 31/1/2006.  Further he has also approached the  Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission and the commission has directed  the complainant to pay an amount of  Rs.5000/- each on or before 12/4/09 and 12/6/2009.  But the complainant did not honor  these directions also and he has suppressed these facts before this Hon’ble Forum.

3.   Both sides heard.

  It appears that complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands suppressing the material facts.  This is a sheer abuse of process.  The Hon’ble National Commission in a case reported in 2010 CTJ 45 (CP) NCDRC relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Hamza Haji reported in AIR 2006 SC 3028 has held that a person whose case is based on false hood can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation.

4.  Relying on the aforesaid decisions we dismiss the complaint with a cost of Rs.3000/-.  The cost has to be paid to the main contesting opposite parties 1 to 3.  Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

Sd/                                                            Sd/                                                Sd/

MEMBER                                            MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

eva                                                              /Forwarded by Order/

                                                              SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT