DATE OF FILING : 08.06.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.118/2010

Between

Complainant : Saraswathi Amma,

W/o Prabhakaran Nair,

Mullackal House,

Chempakappara P.O,

Eettithoppe,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: C.K.Babu)

And

Opposite Party : The Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Eettithoppe P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: Thomas Perumana & V.C.Sebastian)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant availed an agricultural loan of Rs.1 lakh from the opposite party bank on 1.10.2001 vide Account No.4276060120088 with the security of 80 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No.1/1 of Kalkoonthal Village, Kamakshy Kara. The loan account became NPA because the repayment was irregular. As per the norms of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme for farmers in the budget 2008-2009, the complainant is entitled for the benefit of the same. On enquiry at the bank, the opposite party told that the complainant's loan has been included in the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief scheme for farmers. But the opposite party issued a notice dated 22.05.2010 demanding Rs.1,54,584/- with interest. It is also mentioned in it that the complainant is entitled only for 25% benefit as per the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme of the Government. The complainant is entitled for the debt waiver of the entire outstanding in the loan account as per the norms of the scheme. The opposite party is trying to make undue profits by making unsustainable and unlawful demands. So this petition is filed for including the complainant's name unconditionally in the list of Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme for farmers and to write off the entire outstanding amount in the loan account.
 

2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant, Smt.Saraswathi Amma W/o Mr.Prabhakaran Nair has availed an agricultural loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party bank under the security of her 80 cents of land in Sy.No.1/1 of Kalkoonthal Village in Chempakappara Kara. During the period of availing the loan, the maximum credit limit provided for agriculture loan was Rs.25,000/- per acre. At the time of making the loan application the complainant herself stated and endorsed that in addition to the mortgaged property herein, she has got 5.41 acres of land in her possession and ownership at Chempakappara Kara and she availed the agricultural loan for cultivating the same land. This fact was again mentioned by herself in main loan application form, reaffirmed in Annexure I of the main loan application and in the credit information report in which the complainant signed. This was also verified and confirmed by the then officer of the opposite party bank in the inspection report. The complainant is holding 6.21 acres of land in possession including the mortgaged property. As per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme for farmers declared by the Central Government in the year 2008, based on the guidelines issued by the RBI to the opposite parties, if a farmer is cultivating as Owner or Tenant or Share Cropper of more than 5 acres of land, he comes only under the category of 'Other Farmers' as defined in Clause No.3.7 cited in the definition of RBI guidelines. Here the complainant is cultivating more than 5 acres of land and she is eligible for Debt relief only. The fact was informed to the complainant by a notice dated 22.05.2010. Accordingly on 30.06.2010, the complainant and her husband (Complainant in CC No.119/2010 of this Forum) willfully and finally settled their due loan accounts in accordance with the demand notice issued by the opposite party. The opposite party has given 25% debt relief to the complainant and her husband, in addition to that, the opposite party also provided 15% concession to both of them as a special offer and rebate. So the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. So there is no deficiency in service 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 party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
 

4. No oral evidence adduced by both parties. Heard from both sides. Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 to R3(series) marked on the side of the opposite party.

5. The POINT :- As per the complainant, complainant is having only 80 cents of patta land in Kalkoonthal Village and she availed a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the security of the said agricultural land for the purpose of agriculture. Complainant is entitled for the write off of the entire outstanding in the loan account as per the scheme declared by the Government. But the opposite party issued a notice on 22.05.2010 demanding Rs.1,54,584/- with interest, because the complainant is entitled only for 25% benefit as per the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief scheme. Ext.P1 is the demand notice issued by the opposite party dated 22.05.2010. Ext.P2 is the circular issued by the NABARD as No.CPD/1566/PL-14/2008-09 dated 23.05.2008 describing the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme of the Government. As per the opposite party, the complainant is having 6.21 acres of land in Sy.No.1/1 of Kalkoonthal Village including the mortgaged property and the complainant availed a loan of Rs.1 lakh from the opposite party by the security of the above land. At the time of availing the loan, the complainant herself stated and endorsed that in addition to the mortgaged property she has got 5.41 acres of land in her possession and ownership and she availed the loan for cultivating the same land. During that time the maximum credit limit provided for agricultural loan was Rs.25,000/- per acre. Ext.R2(series) is the copy of the application for agricultural credit loan given by the complainant in which it is written that the complainant is having total 0.61 cents and 0.80 cents of patta land and 4 acres of land in possession. Also it is written in the column of Brief Report on the Means/Assets of Individual Proprietor or Partner or Director that “5.41 acres of land of Chempakappara and Kochukamakshy valued at Rs.15 lakhs”. The circular issued for Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 by the Finance Minister in the budget speech 2008-2009 is also produced by the opposite party and it is marked as Ext.R3(series). It is the circular for Scheduled Commercial Banks, Regional Rural Banks, Co-operative Credit institutions(including Urban Co-operative Banks) and Local Area Banks.
 

6. It is admitted by the complainant that she is having 80 cents of patta land in Kalkoonthal Village. But the opposite party contended that she is having 5.41 acres of land in her possession and ownership in the same village including patta and non-patta land. So the complainant is entitled only for 25% benefit as per the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief scheme of the Government. But Ext.P2, the circular produced by the complainant regarding the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief scheme, 2008 in which it is written that it is for the information of District Co-operative Banks and Co-operative Societies. The circular produced by the opposite party, which is the guidelines for Scheduled Commercial Banks, Regional Rural Banks, Co-operative Credit institutions(including Urban Co-operative Banks), Local Area Banks etc. in which it is written that farmers having more than 5 acres of land are considered as 'Other Farmers' and they are entitled for a relief of 25% only if they pays the balance 75% in O.T.S Scheme. So we think that the complainant is having 80 cents of land and it is admitted by the complainant herself. The opposite party never produced tax receipt or possession certificate to show that the complainant is having more than 5 acres of property in her possession.

But in CC No.119/2010 of this Forum, which is filed by the husband of the complainant together with this case, it is mentioned that her husband is having 4.36 acres of patta land in Sy.No.1/1 of Kalkoonthal Village and he availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for cultivating the same. The complainant in this case and the complainant in CC No.119/2010 are husband and wife and they are residing in the same address. So they are the owner and in possession of 4.36 acres by the husband and 80 cents of land by the wife respectively. It clearly shows that they are having more than 5 acres of agricultural land and as per the circular issued by the Government, they are eligible only for 25% of the benefit as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, if they pays the balance 75%. That was already given by the opposite party. So there is no deficiency is proved from the part of the opposite party.
 

Hence petition dismissed. No costs is ordered against the complainant.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of October, 2010
 

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
 

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

Nil

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Demand Notice dated 22.05.2010 issued by the opposite party

Ext.P2 - Photocopy of NABARD Circular No.CPD/1566/PL-14/2008-2009 dated 23.05.2008

On the side of Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - Photocopy of Demand Notice dated 22.05.2010 issued by the opposite party

Ext.R2(series) - Photocopy of application for agricultural loan

Ext.R3(series) - Circular regarding the Agricultural Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme issued by the Finance Minister in the budget speech 2008-2009