CC Filed on 17.09.2010
Disposed on 29.10.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 29th day of October 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 195/2010
Between:
Sri. Chikka Venkataramappa, S/o. Late. Jeyappa, Markonda Village, Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk. | ….Complainant |
V/S The Manager, Canara Bank, Vokkaleri Branch, Kolar Taluk & District. (By Advocate Sri. N.G. Vasudev Murthy) | ….Opposite Party |
ORDER
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant contends that he had taken loan of Rs.90,000/- on 14.09.2005 for agricultural purpose from the Opposite Party-Bank. The complainant has promptly repaid the loan amount, but the Opposite Party has not issued any receipts for having repaid that amount. As he has promptly repaid the entire amount, the Opposite Party called him to his Bank on 24.01.2007 and obtained his signature on several papers and entered in his pass book showing another loan of Rs.90,000/- has been sanctioned. He states that he does not know sanctioning of another loan and inspite of it he was repaying that amount. After publication of Debt Relief Scheme, he requested the Opposite Party to waive the entire loan amount, but they have not waived it. On 01.04.2010 Opposite Party issued a notice to repay the amount. It is stated that even though he has not taken any such loan he has been asked to repay the loan. Hence he has filed this complaint for direction to the Opposite Party to waive the loan as per the Debt Relief Scheme.
2. The Opposite Party has filed its version and has admitted about sanctioning loans to the complainant as contended. However the Opposite Party denies the other allegations that the Opposite Party has taken the signatures of the complainant on some papers without sanctioning any loan and he is not liable to repay that loan. The Opposite Party contends that the complainant has borrowed Rs.90,000/- on 14.09.2009 for crop loan and he has repaid that amount. Hence the loan was renewed on 24.01.2007 and because of it, his case does not fall under the Debt Relief Scheme. The Opposite Party contends that as per that scheme the amount should have been disbursed upto March 31, 2007 and the overdue should be as on 31.12.2007 and it should remaining unpaid till February 2008. If that is so, he will be eligible for waiver of loan, but his case does not fall within the category as the loan itself as it was given on 24.01.2007 and it has not become overdue. Hence notice was issued to pay the principal amount and the interest due and the complaint is not maintainable.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved the alleged
deficiency in service by the OP?
Point No.2: To what order?
4. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
1. Negative
2. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5. POINT NO.1: The contention of the complainant that he has not taken second loan on 24.01.2007 is not acceptable because he admits about the executing the loan documents relating to it. According to him, his signature was taken on some documents and entry was also made in his pass book showing that loan of Rs.90,000/- was given on 24.01.2007. In view of his own admission about executing such document, his contention that no such loan was sanctioned is not acceptable. If the Opposite Party is claiming that amount, the Opposite Party will be entitled to file suit for recovery of that amount and in that event the complainant may raise his defence stating that he has not taken any such loan. In that event, it will be a Civil Dispute, which can be decided by the Civil Court. Hence that dispute cannot be said to be a Consumer dispute, which is required to be dealt with by this Forum. Hence the dispute raised by him about not raising the loan on 24.01.2007 cannot be considered by this Forum.
He contends that even relating to that second loan he has repaid the amount and he claims that he is entitled for waiver of the entire loan under Debt Relief Scheme. The copy of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme 2008 is produced by both the parties and the relevant portion of it reads as follows:
4. Eligible amount
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):
(i) disbursed up to March 31, 2007 and overdue as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008;
(ii) restructured and rescheduled by banks in 2004 and in 2006 through the special packages announced by the Central Government, whether overdue or not; and
When the above portion of the Debt Relief Scheme is considered, it goes to show that the loan which has become overdue as on 31.12.2007 and the amount out of it remaining unpaid until 29.02.2008 is discharged. Hence only that portion of the loan will be waived and not the entire loan amount. For considering whether any amount has become overdue as on 31.12.2007 and it has not been paid till 29.02.2008, the complainant has to plead the same. In this case, the complainant has not at all pleaded anything about it. Admittedly the second loan is sanctioned on 24.01.2007, hence that entire loan cannot become overdue by 31.12.2007. Hence for want of necessary pleadings, the Forum cannot hold that he is entitled for debit relief under that scheme. Hence we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that he is entitled for discharging the entire loan amount under that scheme. Hence he has failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence this point is held against the complainant.
6. POINT NO.2: In view on the finding on point No.1, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 29th day of October 2011.
K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
