DATE OF FILING : 7.2.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.31/2011

Between

Complainants : 1. Binimol Augustine,

Arimattathil House,

Parappuzha P.O.,

Kodikkulam, Idukki District.

2. Saji Augustine

Arimattathil House,

Kolapra, Kudayathoor P.O.,

Idukki District.

(Both by Advs: M.K. Kunjachan

& V.C. Sebastian)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

State Bank of Travancore,

Muttom Branch, Muttom P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Babichen V. George)

2. The District Collector,

Idukki, Painavu P.O..

3. The Tahsildar (RR),

Thodupuzha,

Thodupuzha, P.O.,

Idukki District.

4. The Village Officer,

Kodikkulam Village,

Kodikkulam P.O.,

Idukki District.

5. The Village Officer,

Kudayathoor Village,

Kudayathoor P.O.,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The 1^st complainant availed a loan of Rs.87,500/- from the 1^st opposite party for conducting a poultry farm after giving the security of 75 cents of land of the 2^nd complainant, on 22.12.2000 as self-employment for their livelihood. The (cont....2)

- 2 -

complainant was not able to repay the loan promptly because of the low market value of the business and also due to the disease spread for the chicken. But the complainant repaid Rs.48,800/- to the opposite party. The complainants became serious financial crisis and were working as coolie now. The complainants are not having any other property. So the complainant applied for including the complainant's loan in the Debt Waiver Scheme of the Government. But the opposite party informed that they are eligible only for 25% waiver by the scheme. After that a registered notice dated 18.11.2010, demanding an amount of Rs.1,74,869/- with 12.75% interest and 5% collection charge and the revenue recovery notices were also received by the complainant. So this petition is filed for including the entire loan of the complainant in the Debt Waiver Scheme.

2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the 1^st complainant availed a loan under PMRY scheme on 22.12.2000 after giving the security of the property of the brother of her husband Mr. Saji Augustine, Arimattathil House, who is the 2^nd complainant. The Central Government has declared many Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Schemes to various kinds of farmers with specific conditions stipulated. As the loan of the complainant became arrear and it is under Agricultural segment, a portion of loan which was in arrear was qualified for relief under Debt Relief Scheme. Of the total defaulted portion, she is eligible for 25% relief provided if she pays the balance 75% . As the complainant did not paid any amount as prescribed, she is not able to enjoy the relaxation of the scheme. Since the complainant has not remitted any amount to be eligible for the relief under the scheme, the account was became overdue and initiated RR proceedings for the full amount for the realisation. The complainants are not eligible for the Debt Waiver Scheme completely as per the petition. The opposite party demanded the amount as per the law and as per the norms of the RBI which is uniform throughout the country. There is no deficiency from the part of the opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5. The POINT :- The complainant filed affidavit and produced evidence as PW1. Ext.P1(series) are the pass book issued by the opposite party for the loan amount of Rs.87,500/- and had repaid Rs.47,800/- as per the pass book produced.

(cont.....3)

- 3 -

The poultry farm business was became dull and due to disease spread to the chicken, she was not able to repay the same. So she applied for getting the Debt Relief declared by the Government, but the opposite party offered only 25% of the relief and issued RR notice on 18.11.2010 and it is marked as Ext.P2. The opposite party issued an adalath notice for an amount of Rs.1,21,017/- and it is marked as Ext.P3. As per the circular issued by the Government for Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, the complainant is eligible for getting relaxation for the entire amount as per the Waiver scheme introduced by the Government. Copy of the scheme is produced and marked as Ext.P4. The opposite party produced evidence as DW1. The statement of account of the complainant's loan is produced and marked as Ext.R1. As per the account, on 27.6.2008, the complainant is eligible for the debt waiver for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. If the complainant paid the 75% of the amount, she would have got the benefit of 25% as per the scheme of the Government. But PW1 never paid the amount. In the account extract, the interest upto 29.10.2010 was calculated because the loan became N.P. Account and she has availed investment loan. As per circular produced, for investment loan

as clause 3.3, Investment Loan (b) investment credit for allied activities extended for acquiring assets in respect of activities allied to agriculture e.g. dairy, poultry farming, goatery, sheep rearing, piggery, fisheries, bee-keeping, green houses and biogas.

So the loan availed by the complainant included in the investment loan as per the clause 3.3 of the Definitions and

as clause 3.7(3) of the circular, In the case of a farmer who has obtained investment credit for allied activities where the principal loan amount does not exceed Rs.50,000/- he would be classified as “small and marginal farmer” and, where the principal amount exceeds Rs.50,000/- he would be classified as “other farmer”, irrespective in both cases of the size of the land holding, if any.

It is also stated in the clause 4(b) Explanation, in the case of an investment loan disbursed upto March 31, 2007 and classified as non-performing asset or suit filed account, only the instalments that were overdue as on December 31, 2007 shall be the eligible amount.

It is also stated in the 6^th clause Debt Relief as 6.1, in the case of 'other farmers', there will be a one time settlement (OTS) Scheme under which the farmer will be given a rebate of 25% of the 'eligible amount' subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of 75% of the 'eligible amount'.

(cont....4)

- 4 -

So the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant is eligible for only 25% and they are also providing OTS facility to the complainant and ready to provide the relaxation as per the scheme. The matter was also recommended by the opposite party to the concerned authority and the amount has to repay is Rs.1,10,000/-. So we think that as per the circular issued by the opposite party, which is produced and marked as Ext.R2, the complainants are eligible for 25% of the loan if she pays 75% . The complainant availed the loan as PMRY scheme and it is having a long period for repayment. Only because of the loss in the business of the poultry farm and due to illness caused to the chicken, she was not able to repay the loan. Ext.P1 pass book also shows that she was promptly paying the amount to the opposite party and she repaid about Rs.48,000/- as per the Ext.P1. It is an investment loan as per the clause 3.3 of the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and she is eligible for only 25% of the entire loan for the relaxation only if she pays the 75% . The scheme was also terminated on 30^th September, 2010. The complainant is having a permanent shed for the poultry farm and it is also stated in the agreement and so that the property is given as security for the loan.

The learned counsel for the complainant produced the notification of the Government for the PMRY Scheme and as per the clause 9 of the scheme,

No collateral for units in industry sector with project cost upto Rs.2 lakhs (the loan ceiling under the PMRY). For partnership projects under Industry sector, the exemption limit for obtaining of collateral security will be Rs.5 lakhs per borrower account. For units in service and business sector no collateral for project upto Rs.1 lakh. Exemption from collateral in case of partnership project will also be limited to an account of Rs.1 lakh per person participating in the project.

It is argued that the collateral cannot be obtained for PMRY loan. But the complainant here never filed any complaint against the opposite party for receiving the collateral security for the loan. The 1^st complainant and the 2^nd complainant provided the collateral security for availing the loan and the loan was availed on 22.12.2000 and no complaint has been raised by the complainant in anywhere else such as to the higher authority of the opposite party or to the RBI or to the Government regarding the collateral security received by the opposite party in this loan. So we think that there is no objection for the complainant for providing collateral security for getting the loan and while the loan became due and Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated, the complainant challenged that the collateral security cannot be obtained from the complainant in the loan availed under PMRY Scheme. There is no whisper for the dispute regarding the collateral security in the original complaint filed by the complainant. The only contention of the complainant

(cont....5)

- 5 -

is that the opposite parties never provided the relaxation under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme declared by the Government. As per Ext.R2 circular

of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 produced by the opposite party, as per clause 3, Definitions of the scheme, as clause 3.3(b), the loan of the complainants is also included in the purview of the Relief Scheme “which is Poultry Farming”

So we think that it is a PMRY loan availed by an educated youth and it is having a long period for repayment. No security is also needed for the same. It is not a deliberate act of the complainant that she made dues in the repayment. They have repaid more than half of the loan promptly while the business was in progress. It is also deposed by PW1 that she is working as coolie now for winning the daily bread of her family. So the opposite party should consider a lenient view to the complainants for settling the loan account.

Hence the petition partially allowed. The opposite parties are directed to settle the loan account of the complainants for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- providing instalment facility not less than six months from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of October, 2011

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)

(cont....6)

- 6 -

APPENDIX

Depositions :-

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Binimol Ugustine.

On the side of the Opposite Parties :

DW1 - A.L. Xavier.

Exhibits :-

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1(series) - The pass book issued by the opposite party for the loan amount

of Rs.87,500/- and the RR notice issued from the Thodupuzha

Taluk Office, in the name of 2^nd complainant.

Ext.P2 - The RR notice issued from the Thodupuzha Taluk Office,

in the name of 1^st complainant.

Ext.P3 - The adalath notice issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 15.5.2010.

Ext.P4 - Copy of the circular issued by the Government for Agricultural

Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.

Ext.P5 - The notification of the Government for the PMRY Scheme.

On the side of the Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - The statement of account of the complainant's loan.

Ext.R2 - The circular issued by the Government for Agricultural Debt Waiver

and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.