By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-
The complaint is filed Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an Order directing the Opposite party to waive the loan amount as per the Debt waive scheme and give back the documents to the complainants, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.60,000/- as coffee subsidy to the complainants.
2. The case of the complainants in brief as follows:- The complainants availed an agricultural loan from the opposite party in the year 2001 as per the KCC No.788 & 789. The amount availed is Rs.1,60,000/-. Towards security of loan the complainants have given documents pertaining to 1.96 acres of land in the name of the 1st complainant and 1.21 acres of land in the name of the 2nd complainant. More over the complainants have given their joint property extended to 1.50 acres also as security. The total extent of property owned and possessed by the complainants as per documents and records is 4 acres and 87 cents only according to the complainants. On account of adverse climate and failure in crops, the complainants have to face great financial stringency and they could not repay the loan amount with interest and amounts become overdue. Thereafter, the Central Government introduced Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme of 2008. As per the above said scheme the loan taken by the complainants is liable to be waived. But it was not waived by the opposite party. When enquired, the opposite party’s officials promised the complainants that it is the latches of some officers and the waiver will be given soon. But the opposite party never acted upon. So the complainants says that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Aggrieved by this, the complainant preferred this complaint for the redressal of grievances.
3. On receipt of complaint, Notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version denying all the material averments in the complaint. According to the opposite party the complainants are not eligible for debt relief since the extent of property mortgaged is above 2 Hectors. Hence the complainants are eligible only for 25% of the waiver and not full waiver. Moreover, in loan application, the extent of property shown is 5 acres and 27 cents ie above 2 Hectors. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
4. On perusal of complaint, proof affidavit of complainant and opposite party, documents filed by both parties and their evidences the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party in
granting coffee subsidy of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant?.
3. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant in addition to complaint, filed proof affidavit and produced documents. The complainant is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the Reply given by opposite party’s local head office under Right to Information Act. Ext.A2 series are original documents No.1739/98, 663/86, 224/81, 1308/91. Ext.A3 is the Encumbrance Certificate submitted by complainant at the time of availing loan. Ext.A4 series are Land Tax Receipts produced by complainant. Ext.A5 is the Agricultural Loan
Application submitted by the complainant before opposite party. Ext.A6 series are the Possession Certificate (3 in Nos). According to the complainant, as per original documents (title deeds) and tax receipts, Possession Certificate submitted by the complainant before the opposite party for availing loans, the total extent of property are 4.67 acres of land. As per re-survey records, it is 4.87 acres of land. According to the complainant, Ext.A5 loan application, the extent of property was wrongly entered by the staff of opposite party who made the entries in it. According to the complainant, the actual extent of property is less than 5 acres and he is entitled to get the loan waiver.
6. But according to the opposite party, the complainant offered 5.27 acres of land for availing loan. So as per rules, the complainant is entitled to get only 25% of the outstanding amount as waiver since the extent of property offered is more than 5 acres. Moreover, the equitable mortgage created by the complainant at the time of sanction was for more than 2 hectors. At the time of availing loan there is no debt relief scheme implemented by the Government. At the time of availing loans, the complainant want more loan amount by including more property owned by him as well as cultivated by him. In the cross-examination of complainant, the complainant stated that “The loan application is given by me and my wife. There was no debt relief scheme exists at the time of availing the loan. I demanded more loan amount than that was sanctioned to me by the bank. But bank had given only sanctioned amount. If I want more amount, I have to offer more property. Loan application is signed by me. I signed the loan application after fully understanding the conditions ”. More over, in 2nd page of deposition, the complainant admitted that “I have signed the loan application showing the extent of property as 5.27 acres”. This statement of complainant clearly shows that at the time of availing loan, he offered more property for getting more amounts from the opposite party. In Ext.A5 loan application, Ext.B2 an application for restructuring and Ext.B3 the Form-A a letter of mortgage signed and declared by complainant all these documents shows that extent of property is 2.1336 Hector that is more than 5 acres. The loan availed by the complainant is in the year 2001 and it was a short term loan. In the year 2005, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested the opposite party to convert and restructure the loan as long term loan for a period of 7 years. And as per his request, the opposite party restructured the loan and changed the loans as long term loans for 7 years period with effect from 24.03.2005 and fixed the repayment amount of Rs.29,150/- as one installment and the loan shall be closed within 7 years. As per “Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. As per Scheme Section 4.1(b), In case of an investment loan(agricultural loan), the investments of such loans that are over due (together with applicable interest on such installments) if the loan was, (I). disbursed up to March 31-2007 and over due as on December 31- 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29-2008. (II). Restructured and rescheduled by banks in 2004 and in 2005 through the special packages announced by the Central Government and, (III). Restructured and rescheduled in the normal course up to March 31, 2007 as per application Reserve Bank of India guide lines on account of natural calamities. (Explanation:- In case of an investment loan disbursed up to 31st March 2007 and classified as non-performing asset or suit filed account, only the installments that were overdue as on 31st December 2007 shall be the eligible amount”). Here, the Forum found that the complainant had as per his own request restructured the loans as long term loans. The opposite party produced the relevant documents to prove their claim and marked as Exts.B1 to B3. In Ext.A5 also, the document produced by the complainant, the extent of property shown as 5.27 acres. Even if title deeds shows that theextents of property is 4.87 acres as per re-survey, the complainant offered more property for getting more amount from opposite party at the time of availing loan. Now the complainant changes his version by seeing the scheme and states that he is having only 2 hectors of land only. That cannot be believed. The Forum cannot neglect Ext.B1 to B3. Moreover, as soon as he restructured the loan from short term to long term loan, he lost the benefit of full waiver but entitled only for waiver of outstanding installment amount as per scheme. As per the scheme Section 3(3) “In 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 principle amount exceeds Rs.50,000/- he would be classified as ‘other farmer’ irrespective in both cases of the size of land holding, if any ”. As per Ext.A5 signed and given by the complainants, the complainants are eligible for 25% of the outstanding due amount if they were ready to pay balance 75% of the outstanding loan amount. But opposite party produced Exts.B1 to B3 documents, on perusal of these documents it is found that the complainant restructured the loan on his own request as a long term loan on 24.03.2005. As per scheme clause 4(1) (b), “In case of an investment loan, the installment of such loan that are overdue (together with interest on such installment) shall be the eligible amount for waiver”. As per the clause 3(3) of the Scheme explains the investment loan includes term loan for traditional and non-traditional plantations and horticulture. As per a decision produced by the opposite party, the Honorable High Court of Kerala by Justice Antony Dominic in WP(C)28136/10W the Court passed judgment that if the petitioner possessed more than 5 acres of land at the time of availing loan, the petitioner could not have been classified as a “Small Farmer”. In the present case, even if the title document of complainant shows that he is having 4.87 acres of land, he possessed and cultivated 5.27 acres of land at the time of availing loan. The documents Ext.A5, Exts.B1 to B3 clearly proves that the complainant had 5.27 acres of land in his possession at the time of availing loan. In a decision pronounced by the Honorable High Court of Kerala, WP(C) 25617/10 by Honorable Justice P. N. Ravindran, the court verdicted that if a person availed a loan under short term loan and thereafter renewed
and restructured it later as long term loan, he loses the benefit under the Scheme of short term loans. The complainant had signed Ext.A5, Exts.B1 to B3 documents much before the implementation of debt waiver scheme. The complainant admitted these signature in all these documents. Now, the complainant denies the contents of the documents is nothing but for the sake of his case only. The complainant is entitled to get the waiver of outstanding installments with interest in his loan account. He is not entitled for the full waiver as per the terms of the scheme and as per the status of this loan account. As per the scheme, the complainant is entitled for the waiver of outstanding installments. The complainant converted this loan in the year 2005 and up to 2007 December 31 there are three outstanding installments of Rs.29,150/- each. So the total outstanding amount are 29,150x3=87,450/- with interest of 10.25 ie Rs.8,964/-. So the total amount is 87,450+8,964=96,413/-. As per Ext.B5, the complainant got relief under Wayanad Package of Rs.51,632.74/- in the same account.
7. So the Forum found that giving waiver of 3 installment amount to the complainant will be just and proper in this case. So the complainant is entitled for a waiver of Rs.96,413/- only. There is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party in dealing with the issue of complainant in granting the benefit of long term loan. If the opposite party calculated interest for the eligible amount of Rs.96,413/- in the loan account from the eligible date, that interest is to be deducted from the total amount due. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
8. Point No.2:- The opposite party stated in the deposition that opposite party had granted eligible amount of coffee subsidy to the complainant. But in complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, there is no specific mention about which coffee subsidy he is entitled to get. Complainant did not adduced any cogent evidence with respect to it. So the Forum found that such a relief cannot be granted to the complainant. The Point No.2 is found accordingly.
9. Point No.3:- Since there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation. The Point No.3 is decided accordingly.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to give a waiver of Rs.96,413/- (Rupees Ninety Six Thousand Four Hundred and Thirteen Only) to the complainant in his loan account and opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. The complainant have to remit the balance amount in his account as per the above findings within three months from the date of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of May 2014.
Date of Filing:10.02.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainants:
PW1. Radhakrishnan. Complainant No.1.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Mohammed Haneefa. Officer, SBI, Anjukunnu.
Exhibits for the complainants:
A1. Reply to Right to Information. Dt:16.08.2011.
A2(Series). Original documents No.1308/91,224/81,663/86,1739/98.
A3(Series). Encumbrance Certificate(13 Pages).
A4(Series). Land Tax Receipts(7 Nos).
A5. Agricultural Loan Application of complainant.
A6(Series). Possession Certificate(3 Nos).
Exhibits for the opposite Party:
B1. Code No.2505(AB7 Mal) Original Document. Dt:24.03.2004.
B2. Application of Complainant to restructure the short term
Loan to long term loan and confirmation of opposite party. Dt:24.03.2004.
B3. FORM-A Letter of Complainant. Dt:07.11.2001.
B4. Authorization Letter.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
