CC Filed on 27.09.2010
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. 196/2010
Between:
Sri. Munivenkatappa, S/o. Sanjeevappa, Aged about 56 years, Somenahalli Village, Vokkaleri Village, 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 is an agriculturist and on 13.08.2002 he has taken loan of Rs.1,25,000/- for the purpose of sericulture. Relating to that loan he has repaid Rs.95,000/- on different occasions, but the officials of the Opposite Party has not issued receipt for the same. It is stated that on 17.06.2010 he has repaid Rs.10,000/- and inspite of it, the Opposite Party has issued notice stating that the complainant is due to pay Rs.1,79,800/-. It is stated that even though he has repaid the amount, the Opposite Party has issued notice without taking into consideration the amount repaid by him and it is illegal. It is contended that he has taken loan for the purpose of sericulture and he sustained the loss and if the loan is not waived injustice will be caused to him. Hence he is entitled for waiver of loan. Hence this complaint is filed to waive the entire loan.
2. The Opposite Party has filed version and admitted about the grant of loan. The Opposite Party denies that the complainant has repaid Rs.95,000/- and another amount of Rs.10,000/- and false claim was made to repay Rs.1,79,800/-. It is contended that the complainant was liable to repay the amount with 5 half yearly installments of Rs.12,500/- and inspite of required demands he has not paid the amount. It is stated that the for waiving the loan under Debt Relief Scheme principal should not exceed Rs.50,000/-, but in this case principal amount is Rs.1,25,000/-. Hence he is not entitled for waiver of loan. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
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 first contention of complainant is that he has repaid Rs.95,000/- and another sum of Rs.10,000/- and the Opposite Party has not issued receipt for the same. In our opinion this contention is not prima-facie acceptable because the Opposite Party is an institution and he cannot interested in not issuing the receipt evenafter making payment. When the complainant has made payment it was for him for insisting for issuing receipt and to maintain the receipt and if the complainant has not done so, he cannot blame the Opposite Party. It is seen the Opposite Party has issued the receipt for Rs.10,000/- and it is produced by the complainant himself. Hence the contention that the Opposite Party was not issuing the receipt cannot be accepted. The complainant does not even plead on what date he has made payment and how much payments is made but he makes a vague pleading stating that he has paid Rs.95,000/-. It shows that the pleading is not acceptable as it is against the probabilities of the case. Hence the contention that he has paid the part of the amount is not acceptable. More over that is a dispute relating to the accounts and for it detailed evidence will be required and it cannot be decided in this summary proceedings. Hence this contention is not acceptable.
The relevant clause of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme 2008 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:
(b) in the case of an investment loan, the installments of such loan that are over due (together with applicable interest on such installments) if the loan was:
(i) disbursed up to March 31, 2007 and overdue as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008.
The further contention of the complainant is that he is a poor farmer and he has sustained loss and if the loan is not waived, he will be put to irreparable loss. If he is entitled for the benefit under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, he must plead the facts which are necessary to apply the scheme. A copy of that scheme is on record and it shows, the eligible amount as stated above and it depends upon the facts of the case. It states that for applying that scheme the loan should have been disbursed upto March 2007, the amount should have become overdue upto 31st March 2007 and such overdue amount should remain unpaid until the end of February 2008. In this way if the loan has become overdue by the end of December 2007 and he has not paid by the end of February 2008 he is entitled for waiver of the loan to the extent to which it become overdue. The complainant has not pleaded anything relating to it, he does not say that any part of the amount was overdue by the end of December 2007 and he has not paid the overdue amount by the end of February 2008. In the absence of any such pleadings, we cannot decide whether that scheme applies to him or not, and he is entitled for benefit under that scheme. Hence simply pleading that he is a poor farmer and may be given benefit under the scheme cannot be accepted. Hence for want of proper pleadings, the contention of the complainant is not acceptable. When there is no required pleadings, the question of substantiating it by evidence does not arise and even in the evidence the complainant has not made any improvement. Hence the complainant has not satisfied the Forum that he is entitled for debt relief under Debt Relief Scheme. 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
