CC Filed on 11.11.2010
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. 227/2010
Between:
Smt. Balamma, W/o. Ramanna, Vokkaleri Village & 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 has taken loan of Rs.15,000/- from the Opposite Party for purchase of cow and for non-agricultural purpose. She was regularly repaying the amount and getting the entries made in her pass book. Inspite of it, the Opposite Party issued letter stating that she is due to pay Rs.16,441/-. It is stated that the Government has announced Debt Relief Scheme and she was entitled for waiver of her loan and she had requested the Opposite Party to do so, but they have failed to do so. About 2 months back when she had gone to the office of Opposite Party, they informed her that loan has been waived and obtained signature forcibly on some papers and she being an illiterate has put her LTM. It is stated even though she had repaid the loan amount, notice has been issued on 20.10.2010. Hence this complaint is filed for direction to the Opposite Party to waive her debt under the Debt Relief Scheme.
2. The Opposite Party has filed his version and has stated that Opposite Party has given loan of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for purchase of cow and Opposite Party demanded for repayment of the loan of Rs.15,441/- as on 31.02.2010, but she had not repaid the same. The notice issued by the Opposite Party is relating to demanding the interest amount. The allegation that the officials of the Opposite Party has forcibly taken the signature of the complainant to any document are denied. It is stated that as on 30.09.2010, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.16,445/-. Under the Debt Relief Scheme the complainant’s overdue amount was Rs.7,197/- and the said amount was given credit to her account and after giving credit of that amount under Debt Relief Scheme still she has to pay balance of Rs.16,445/- as on 30.09.2010 and interest for the subsequent period. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
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: In our opinion the complainant has failed to prove that there is deficiency in service for the following reasons. The copy of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt 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:
(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.
Hence for giving benefit under the scheme the amount should have been overdue as on 31.12.2007 and that overdue amount should not have been repaid until the end of February 2008. For applying this scheme, the complainant should specifically plead what was the amount that was overdue as on December 2007 and out of it whether any amount remained unpaid until February 2008. The complainant does not plead anything about it. Hence in the absence of such specific pleadings, it will not be possible to decide whether the said scheme applies to the complainant and whether the complainant is entitled for benefit under that scheme. In view of defective pleadings, the contention of the complainant that she was entitled for relief under the Debt Relief Scheme is not accepted. The complainant does not specifically plead how much she has paid, when she has paid, what was the amount that was overdue as on March 31st 2008. On the other hand she only pleads that she has repaid the amount to the extent possible and on such pleadings no relief can be granted. The burden of proof is on the complainant and she has to specifically plead the facts which are relevant for applying the above scheme and in the absence of such pleading, it ought to held that the complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof. Hence the burden of proof does not shift on the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has given benefit under the scheme for Rs.7,197/- only. As the burden of proof is not on the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party cannot be called upon to substantiate his contention that complainant was only entitled for refund of small amount. 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
