CC Filed on 02.07.2009
Disposed on 30.12.2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 30th day of December 2010
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 47/2009
Between:
Sri. V. Chowdareddy, S/o. late Venkataramappa, Aged about 45 years, KanchepalliVillage, Yenigaddale Post, Chilakalanerpu Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. (By Advocate Sri. C.B. Jayarama & others) V/S 1. The Manager, Pragathi Gramina Bank, Chilakalanerpu Branch, Chilakalanerpu, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. 2. The Divisional Manager, Pragathi Gramina Bank, Divisional Office, Kolar. | ….Complainant |
3. The Chairman, Pragathi Gramina Bank, Head Office, Gandhi Nagar, Bellary. (By Advocate Sri. N.G. Vasudev Murthy) 4. The Government of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Financial Service, Ministry of Finance, Chairperson, New Delhi, India. | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to waive of the agricultural loan outstanding in loan account KCC No. 317 granted by OP.1 with costs.
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant borrowed Rs.50,000/- agricultural loan for growing potato crop from OP.1 on 14.10.2004. The said loan account was maintained in KCC No. 317 by OP.1. The complainant mortgaged his land Sy. No. 64 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta, Sy. No.20 measruing 0.20 guntas and Sy. No. 42/3 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta situated at Kanchepalli Village of Chintamani Taluk.
That the complainant is a “Small Farmer” as defined in Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 (for short Scheme). The complainant is cultivating in all 4 acres 21 guntas and out of it he mortgaged 2 acres 21 guntas in favour of OP.1 as security for the loan and that the OP.1 has wrongly mentioned in the application for Kissan Credit Card that the total extent of land held by complainant was 5 acres 35 guntas. He does not own or possess any other land other than the land measuring 4 acres 21 guntas. As per the Scheme he is eligible for waiver of agricultural loan outstanding in KCC No. 317 treating him as ‘small farmer’.
It is alleged that OP.1 has not waived the said agricultural loan of complainant. OP.1 has wrongly shown in its loan record that the complainant was owning and possessing totally 5 acres 30 guntas. It is alleged that the total extent held by complainant is only 4 acre 21 guntas, but not 5 acres 30 guntas as shown by OP.1 in the loan papers. It is alleged that inspite of bringing the mistake to the notice of OP No.1 to 3 by representation dated 04.07.2008, the mistake was not rectified and the benefit under the Scheme was not extended to complainant. Therefore he filed the present complaint.
3. OP No.1 to 3 which are branch, divisional and head offices appeared through Counsel and contested the proceedings. It is admitted that the complainant was granted crop loan of Rs.50,000/- for growing potato crop in KCC No. 317. The other allegations are denied. It is contended by OP No.1 to 3 that the complainant while borrowing the loan has furnished the details of all the lands owned and possessed by him in the application for Kissan Credit Card Limit dated 14.10.2004. The complainant has declared that the particulars given by him in the application are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Further it is contended that as shown in the application for Kissan Credit Card Limit he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy. No. 52 measuring 30 guntas Sy. No. 42/3 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta, Sy. No. 90 measuring 20 guntas, Sy. No. 64 measuring 20 guntas, Sy. No. 52/3 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas dry and 1 acre 1 guntas of irrigated land and Sy. No. 42 measuring 5 guntas of Kenchapalli Village, Chintamani Taluk and the complainant executed necessary loan papers and agreed to create charge only over 3 items of properties i.e. Sy. No. 64, Sy. No. 90 and Sy. No. 42/3 where he had grown potato crops and executed the required documents. It is contended that the complainant borrowed the loan of Rs.50,000/- agreeing to repay it within 3 years from 14.10.2004 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. which was advanced under Kissan Credit Card Scheme.
Further they contended that as per the declaration and admission of complainant he possessed 5 acres 34 guntas and he is not eligible for any benefit as “Small Farmer” under the Scheme. These OPs have contended that complainant is an “Other Farmer” as defined in Para. 3.7 of the Scheme and at best he is eligible for relief to the extent of Rs.20,000/- under the said Scheme. Further they contended that the representation of complainant dated 04.07.2008 requesting for entire debt waiver is heard and disposed of on 26.07.2008 and the same is communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 26.07.2008.
4. In response to the notice issued to OP.4 Sri. P.N. Krishna Reddy, Dist. Government Pleader appeared for OP.4. In spite of granting sufficient opportunity OP.4 has not filed any version.
5. The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and he has already produced the documents. On behalf of OP No.1 to 3 the Manager of OP.1 had filed affidavit and he has also filed by the relevant documents.
6. We heard the Learned Counsel for OPs and the complainant. The Learned Counsel for OPs submitted that the prior admission and declaration submitted by complainant is binding on him which clearly shows that the complainant was owning and cultivating 5 acres 34 guntas of land and therefore he was not eligible for entire debt waiver, but he was only the falling under the definition of “Other Farmer” as defined in the said Scheme. The complainant submitted that he had not made such admission or declaration at the time of obtaining the loan and it was wrongly mentioned by the officers of OP.1 without his knowledge and consent and he further submitted that in reality he owns only 4 acres 21 guntas and therefore he is a “Small Farmer” eligible for entire debit waiver.
7. The Learned Counsel for OPs further submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of Para. 10.2 of the Scheme.
8. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the complaint is barred in view of Para.10.2
of the Scheme?
Point No.2: Whether the complainant is a “Small Farmer” as
defined in Para. 3.06 the Scheme?
Point No.3: To which reliefs the complainant is entitled to?
Point No.4: To what order?
9. After considering the records and submissions of the parties our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: Para. 10 of the Scheme is as follows:
10.1 Every lending institution shall be responsible for the correctness and integrity of the lists of farmers eligible under this Scheme and the particulars of the debt waiver or debt relief in respect of each farmer. Every document maintained, every list prepared and every certificate issued by a lending institution for the purposes of this Scheme shall bear the signature and designation of an authorised officer of the lending institution.
10.2 Every lending institution shall appoint one or more Grievance Redressal Officers for each State (having regard to the number of branches in that State). The name and address of the Grievance Redressal Officer concerned shall be displayed in each branch of the lending institution. The Grievance Redressal Officer shall have the authority to receive representations from aggrieved farmers and pass appropriate orders thereon. The order of the Grievance Redressal Officer shall be final.
10.3 Any Farmer who is aggrieved on the ground that his name has not been included in either of the two lists referred to in paragraph 7.1 or on the ground that his name has been included in the wrong list or on the ground that the relief granted to him has been calculated wrongly, may make a representation through the branch from which he received the loan or directly to the Grievance Redressal Officer of the lending institution concerned and every such representation shall be disposed of within 30 days of receipt thereof.
The Learned Counsel for the OPs submitted that the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer shall become final, therefore any farmer cannot approach the Forum constituted under the C.P. Act 1986 or the Civil Court challenging the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer. They particularly relied upon para. 10.2 of the said Scheme.
We think the contention of the Learned Counsel for OPs cannot be accepted. The lending institutions have a duty under the Scheme to extend the benefit provided under this Scheme to various eligible persons. What para.10.2 provides is an opportunity to the aggrieved farmer to make his representation before the Grievance Redressal Officer. It may be true that the farmer who is aggrieved cannot prefer any representation before any other higher officer of the lending institutions, after obtaining a decision from Grievance Redressal Officer. If the authorised officer of the lending institutions or the Grievance Redressal Officer commits mistake in arriving a particular decision, the aggrieved farmer is entitled to seek legal remedy. When the Central Government extended certain benefits to farmers they have a legal right to get that benefit if they are entitled to it. That legal right can be agitated before Civil Court or before Consumer Forum unless the jurisdiction of it is expressly or impliedly barred. The making of representation before the Grievance Redressal Officer or any decision by such officer does not impliedly or expressly barred the jurisdiction of Civil Court or this Forum. A complaint can be filed before Consumer Forum by aggrieved farmer if he alleges deficiency in service on the part of service provider. The lending institutions are providing banking service and it is not a free service and they charge for their service in one or other way. Under the Scheme a duty is casts on the financial institution to extend the benefits to eligible persons. The benefits extended to the farmers under this Scheme by the lending institutions, is reimbursed by the Central Government. Therefore any person eligible for debt waiver or debt relief can establish that he was not considered on improper reasons. Therefore we hold that this Forum can entertain the complaint and it has jurisdiction to decide it. Hence Point No.1 is held in negative.
Point No.2: Under the Scheme in para. 3.06 “Small Farmer” is defined as follows:
3.6 ‘Small Farmer’ means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and up to 2 hectares (5 acres).
The explanation under para.3, relevant for our purpose is as follows:
Explanation:
1. The classification of eligible farmers as per the above landholding criteria under the Scheme would be based on the total extent of land owned by the farmer either singly or as joint holder (in the case of an owner-farmer) or the total extent of land cultivated by the farmer (as tenant or share cropper), at the time of sanction of the loan, irrespective of any subsequent changes in ownership or possession.
Para.4 of the Scheme 2008 explains the eligible amount for debt waiver or debt relief and Para.5 & 6 explain who are entitled to debt waiver and debt relief. Para.7.1 prescribes the procedure for implementation of the Scheme. It reads as follows:
7.1 Every branch of a scheduled commercial bank, regional rural bank, co-operative credit institution, urban co-operative bank and local area bank covered under this Scheme shall prepare two lists, one consisting of ‘small and marginal farmers’ who are eligible for debt waiver and the second consisting of ‘other farmers’ who are eligible for debt relief under this Scheme. The lists shall include particulars of the landholding, the eligible amount and the amount of debt waiver or debt relief proposed to be granted in each case. The lists shall be displayed on the notice board of the branch of the bank/society on or before June 30, 2008.
Para. 7.8 states that R.B.I shall be the Nodal Agency for the implementation of the Scheme in respect of scheduled commercial banks, urban co-operative banks and local area banks and that NABARD shall be the Nodal Agency in respect of regional rural banks and co-operative credit institutions. Para.9 of the Scheme provides for issue of certificate of debt waiver or debt relief to the eligible persons. Para. 10.1 of the Scheme prescribes that every lending institution shall be responsible for the correctness and integrity for the lists of farmers eligible under the Scheme, etc., Para.10.2 prescribes that the Grievance Redressal Officer shall receive the representation from aggrieved farmer and shall pass appropriate order on it.
In the present case, the complainant applied for Kissan Credit Card Limit on 14.10.2004. The particulars of immovable properties owned and possessed by complainant is shown in the relevant column of application. These particulars are as follows:
Location Extent
of property Sy. No. A-G
KenchepalliVillage 52 0.30
42/3 1.01
90 0.20
64 0.20
52/3 2.39 = (1.38 + 1.01)
42 0.05
_______
Total 5.35
_______
It appears when the complainant came to know that he was not treated as ‘small farmer’, he made a representation dated 04.07.2008 to OP.1 and it appears that representation was sent to Grievance Redressal Officer for further action. Further it appears by letter dated 26.07.2008 the complainant was informed that as he was holding more than 5 acres of land he was treated as ‘other farmer’ but not as ‘small farmer’. The complainant had in his representation to OP.1 stated that he was holding and cultivating only 4 acres 21 guntas but not 5.35 guntas as shown in his Kissan Credit Card loan application. It appears he produced the documents relating to properties acquired by him through partition deed dated 04.02.2000 and the sale deed dated 10.07.2000 to establish that his total land holding was only 4 acres 21 guntas. Therefore the complainant in substance contended that Sy. No. 52 measuring 30 guntas, Sy. No. 52/3 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas and Sy. No. 42 measuring 5 guntas shown in his application for Kissan Credit Card do not really belong to him. On the other hand the complainant contended that he has got some other lands apart from Sy. No. 42/3 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta, Sy. No. 90 measuring 90 guntas and Sy. No. 64 measuring 20 guntas shown in his application for Kissan Credit Card Limit. The OPs have not filed any documents to show that Sy. No. 52, Sy. No. 52/3 and Sy. No. 42 stated in the application for Kissan Credit Card belong to complainant.
Both parties have filed certain R.T.C extracts for the relevant year. The Learned Counsel for OPs contended that even if the lands standing in the name of complainant in these R.T.Cs are taken into consideration the total holding of complainant comes to more than 5 acres and therefore he is not ‘small farmer’.
The complainant in his Memo dated 04.01.2010 stated that the following are the lands held by him acquired under partition deed dated 04.02.2000 and the sale deed dated 10.07.2000 totally measuring 4 acres 21¼ guntas.
Sy. No. Extent
A & G
42/3 1.01½
47 1.02
50/2 0.30
64 1.01
90 0.20
40/1 0.04¾
65/4 0.02
------------
Total 4.21¼
The complainant has also produced R.T.C relating to these properties. In the R.T.C relating to Sy. No. 47 it is shown that complainant holds 1 acre 02 guntas and also another 0.35 guntas out of the total extent of 4 acres 02 guntas. One Subbarayappa is shown as holding 1 gunta and one Rajamma is shown as holding 2 acres 04 guntas out of this Sy. No. Therefore the complainant holding another 35 guntas in this Sy. No. 47 apart from 1 acre 02 guntas in the same Sy. No. can be safely believed. The complainant has not produced R.T.C pertaining to Sy. No. 65/1 mentioned in his Memo. He claimed in the Memo that in this Sy. No. he holds 2 guntas. The OPs have produced R.T.C relating to Sy. No. 65/1 showing that complainant holds half share out of 34 guntas and one Subbarayappa holds half share in the same 34 guntas and a different Subbarayappa holds another 3 guntas. The total extent of Sy. No. 65/1 is shown as 37 guntas. Therefore it is also prima-facie made out by OPs that complainant is holding 17 guntas out of Sy. No. 65/1 but not merely 2 guntas as claimed by him. These facts establish that complainant has not stated the true facts regarding his total land holdings. As noted above the total extent of the lands held by complainant comes to 5 acres 33 guntas. In that event the complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘small farmer’. Hence Point No.1 is held in Negative.
Point No.3: As complainant is not ‘small farmer’ as defined under the Scheme, he is not entitled to waiver of the entire loan amount. Hence Point No.3 is held accordingly.
Point No.4: Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 30th day of December 2010.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
