BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 181/2010 Filed on 18/06/2010
Dated: 31..12..2010
complainant:
Shaj Kumar, Thottumpurathu Veedu, Pazhakutti – P.O., Nedumangadu.
(By Adv. V.A. Jayaraj)
opposite party:
Manager, UCO Bank, Overbridge Jn., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. K.G. Baiju)
This O.P having been heard on 30..12..2010, the Forum on 31..12..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
This petition has been filed by the opposite party to hear the maintainability of the complaint as preliminary issue. It has been the stand of the opposite party that the relief sought in the complaint is a prohibitory injunction restraining the opposite party bank from proceeding with the recovery proceeding initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against the complainant and his assets, that Section 34 of the said Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court and other authorities to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any action taken or to be taken under the Act, that no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect to any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under Act or under the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Complainant filed objection contending that he has availed an agricultural loan vide loan A/c No.14169 from the opposite party, that he has repaid an amount of Rs. 49,600/- upto 11/2007 and opposite party has recorded the same in his loan Account pass book, that Government by its policy has decided to waive agricultural debt and opposite party had informed the same to the complainant also, that when he went to the Bank to get back the records furnished by him, opposite party refused to release the same and that on enquiry it has come to his knowledge that opposite party has not closed the said Bank loan. The preliminary issue for consideration is whether complainant's loan amount is eligible for debt waiver or debt relief scheme 2008. Complainant has furnished the copy of the loan account pass book. Opposite party has filed affidavit along with document of agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme 2008. Opposite party has filed version also. It has been contended by opposite party that complainant has availed an agricultural term loan limit Rs. 5,00,000/- from the opposite party on 26/3/2007 assuring repayment in 10 half yearly installments, that as per the said ADWR scheme certain agricultural loans which were overdue as on 31/12/2007 were eligible for debt waiver or debt relief. It is admitted by the opposite party that complainant repaid Rs. 49,600/- before 31/12/2007. Further averred in the affidavit that he has no overdue in his loan account as on 31/12/2007. Therefore, he is not entitled for debt waiver or relief under clause 4.1 (a & b) of Scheme 2008. Opposite party has produced the said scheme. Clause 4.1 of the said scheme deals with the eligibility criteria of the scheme. The contents of the said clause may be reproduced:
4.1 The amount eligible for debt waiver or debt relief, as the case may be (hereinafter referred to as the 'eligible amount'), shall comprise of
(a) In the case of a short term production loan, the amount of such loan (together with applicable interest):
disbursed upto March 31, 2007 and overdue as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008.:
restructured and rescheduled by banks in 2004 and in 2006 through the special package announced by the Central Government, whether overdue or not: and
restructured and rescheduled in the normal course up to March 31, 2007 as per applicable RBI guidelines on account of natural calamities, whether overdue or not.
(b) in the case of an investment loan, the installments of such loan that are overdue (together with applicable interest on such installments) if the loan was:
disbursed up to March 31, 2007 and overdue as on December31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008;
restructured and rescheduled by banks in 2004 and in 2008 through the special packages announced by the Central Government; and
restructured and rescheduled in the normal course upto March 31, 2007 as per applicable RBI guidelines on account of natural calamities.
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 installments that were overdue as on December 31, 2007 shall be the eligible amount. Complainant himself admitted that he has remitted Rs. 49,600/- before 31/12/2007. It is to be pointed out that complainant has availed the loan in March 2007. The burden is on the part of the complainant to show that there was overdue as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008. Complainant has not adduced any evidence to counter the affidavit furnished by the opposite party. On the strength of affidavit accompanied by the document showing agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has no overdue in his loan account as on 31/12/2007 as such, his loan amount is not eligible for debt waiver and debt relief as stipulated under clause 4.1 of the aforesaid said scheme. In view of the above, complaint is not maintainable and the Interim Order dated 17/6/2010 in IA No. 207/2010 in C.C. No: 181/2010 restraining opposite parties from proceeding further action in connection with loan account No.14169 is lifted.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of December, 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD,
PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A,
MEMBER.
S.K. SREELA,
MEMBER .
