D.of.F:19/11/2011
D. of O:10/4/2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.310/2011
Dated this, the10th day of April 2012
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
V.K.Abdulla,, . } Complainant
S/o Kunhamad, Kajoor House,
Po Badaje,,Kasaragod .Dt
(Adv. E. Sukumaran, Hosdurg)
1.The Manager,
Kasaragod Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural
Development Bank Ltd, Uppala Branch, Po Uppala, Kasaragod.
2.The Senior Inspector/Special Sale Officer
Kasaragod Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural
Development Bank Ltd, Kasaragod Branch, Po. Kasaragod.
(Adv.A.N.Ashok Kumar,Kasaragod for Ops1&2)
3.The Assistant Manager, RBI,
Rural Planning & Credit Department, : Opposite parties
Bekary Junction, P.B.No.6507, Thiruvananthapuram.
4 The General Manager,(Convener),
Canara Bank, State Level Bankers Committees Cell,
Circle Office, Canara Bank Bldg,PB.NO.159,
M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.
(Ops 3 &4 Exparte)
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 complainant 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. Ist opposite party the main contesting opposite party in their version has stated that they have given all benefits to the complainant as per law and deduct the amount due to the bank as per the scheme and the recovery proceedings are initiated only for the balance amount and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
3. Both sides heard. The learned counsel for opposite party Sri.Ashok Kumar.A.C produced the copy of the NABARD circular explaining the directions for granting the debt waiver relief to the beneficiaries. Clause 10-3 of the said scheme envisages that the beneficiaries of the said scheme can approach the Grievance Redressal Officer for the redressal of their grievances if they have a contention that their names were not included in both lists or the relief calculated is wrong.
4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties 1&2 submitted that since there is an alternative redressal mechanism to the complainant by submitting a representation under clause 10-3 of the ADWR Scheme they could have take recourse to the said alternative remedy. Apart from that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in WPC Nos. 12552, 12554,12569,and 12570/2011 has directed the beneficiaries of the said Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 to approach the grievance redressal officer for ventilating their grievance in terms of clause 10-3 of the aforesaid scheme.
5. In view of the above submission of the counsel for opposite parties 1&2 and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala cited above we direct the complainant to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. The Grievance Redressal Officer shall consider representation and dispose the same expeditiously. Till the disposal of the said representations all further proceedings for recovery of the amounts availed by the complainant as loans shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if no representation is filed by the complainant as stipulated in clause 10(3) of ADWR Scheme within the time mentioned above, then the opposite parties shall be free to continue recovery proceedings initiated by them.
The complaint is disposed as above.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
/Forwarded by Order/
eva SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
