CC Filed on 06.02.2010
Disposed on 30.12.2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR – 563 101.
KARNATAKASTATE
Dated: 30th day of December 2010
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 18/2010
Between:
Sri. S.B. Baya Reddy, S/o. late Chikka Bayappa, Aged about 55 years, SalamakanahalliVillage, T. Gollahalli Post, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. V/S 1. The Manager, Pragathi Gramina Bank, Chilakalanerpu, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. 2. The Manager, Pragathi Gramina Bank, Head Office, Sangankal, Gandhinagar, Bellary. (By Advocate Sri. N.G. Vasudev Murthy) | ….Complainant |
3. The Secretary, Banking Division, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, JeevanDeepBuilding, Sanad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to waive of the agricultural loan outstanding in loan account KCC No. 367 granted by OP.1 with costs.
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
The complaint is filed by the complainant in person. That the complainant borrowed Rs.50,000/- agricultural loan for growing tomato crop from OP.1 on 04.03.2005. The said loan account was maintained in KCC No. 367 by OP.1. The complainant mortgaged his lands Sy. No. 93 measuring 1 acre 23 guntas, Sy. No. 151 measuring 1 acre and Sy. No. 143 measuring 0 acre 15 guntas situated at Gagadavarahalli Village of Chintamani Taluk.
That the complainant is a “Small Farmer” as defined in Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 (for short Scheme). The complainant is cultivating Sy. No. 93 measuring 1 acre 23 guntas, Sy. No. 151 measuring 1 acre, Sy. No. 143 measuring 0-15 guntas, Sy. No. 176 measuring 0-7½ guntas. The total land holding of complainant comes to 3 acres 05½ guntas. He does not own or possess any other land other than the above said lands. As per the Scheme he is eligible for waiver of agricultural loan obtained in KCC No. 367.
It is alleged that OP.1 has not waived the said agricultural loan of complainant. OP.1 has shown that Sy. No. 154 of Gagadavarahalli Village of Chintamani Taluk measuring 2 acres also belongs to complainant, but in fact the said land actually measures 1 acre 17 guntas and it belongs to one Marappa Guntur who is some other person not even related to complainant. Therefore OP.1 has wrongly held that the complainant is holding more than 5 acres and thereby did not consider him for debt waiver. The complainant has produced the documents to evidence that Sy. No. 154 does not belong to him and inspite of it his request was not considered by OP.1. Therefore he filed the present complaint.
3. OP No.1 and 2 which are branch and head office appeared through Counsel and contested the proceedings. It is admitted that the complainant was granted crop loan of Rs.50,000/- for growing potato crop in KCC No. 367. The other allegations are denied. It is contended by OP.1 and 2 that the complainant while borrowing the loan has furnished the details of all the lands owned and possessed by him in the application dated 04.03.2005 for Kissan Credit Card Limit and that the complainant has declared that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy. No. 93 measuring 1 acre 23 guntas Sy. No. 151 measuring 1 acre and Sy. No. 143 measuring 15 guntas and Sy. No. 154 measuring 2 acres, Sy. No. 176 measuring 7½ guntas in all 5 acres 5½ guntas. Further they contended that as per the declaration and admission of complainant he possessed more than 5 acres and he is not eligible for any benefit as “Small Farmer” under the Scheme. It is further contended that on 29.12.2009 the complainant gave a petition for extending the benefit under the said scheme as a “Small Farmer” but the OP No.1 by letter dated 02.02.2010 replied stating that he was not eligible for debt waiver and further he was intimated if he paid 75% of the loan due he was eligible for only 25% concession for which the complainant had not responded.
4. In response to the notice issued to OP.3 Sri. P.N. Krishna Reddy, Dist. Government Pleader appeared for OP.3 as per the authorization letter 20.04.2010. In spite of granting sufficient opportunity OP.3 has not filed any version.
5. The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and he has already produced the documents. The OPs have not led any evidence.
6. We heard the Learned Counsel for OPs and the complainant. The Learned Counsel for OPs submitted that the prior admission and declaration submitted by complainant is binding on him which clearly shows that the complainant was owing 5 acres 5½ guntas of land and therefore he was not eligible for entire debt waiver, but he was only falling under the definition of “Other Farmer” as defined in the said Scheme. The complainant submitted that he had not made such admission or declaration regarding Sy. No. 154 at the time of obtaining the loan and it was wrongly mentioned by the officers of OP.1 without his knowledge and consent and he further submitted that in reality he owns only 3 acres 5½ guntas and therefore he is a “Small Farmer” eligible for entire debit waiver.
7. The Learned Counsel for OPs further submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of Para. 10.2 of the Scheme.
8. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the complaint is barred in view of Para.10.2
of the Scheme ?
Point No.2: Whether the complainant is a “Small Farmer” as
defined in Para. 3.06 the Scheme?
Point No.3: To which reliefs the complainant is entitled to?
Point No.4: To what order?
9. After considering the records and submissions of the parties our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: Para. 10 of the Scheme is as follows:
10.1 Every lending institution shall be responsible for the correctness and integrity of the lists of farmers eligible under this Scheme and the particulars of the debt waiver or debt relief in respect of each farmer. Every document maintained, every list prepared and every certificate issued by a lending institution for the purposes of this Scheme shall bear the signature and designation of an authorised officer of the lending institution.
10.2 Every lending institution shall appoint one or more Grievance Redressal Officers for each State (having regard to the number of branches in that State). The name and address of the Grievance Redressal Officer concerned shall be displayed in each branch of the lending institution. The Grievance Redressal Officer shall have the authority to receive representations from aggrieved farmers and pass appropriate orders thereon. The order of the Grievance Redressal Officer shall be final.
10.3 Any Farmer who is aggrieved on the ground that his name has not been included in either of the two lists referred to in paragraph 7.1 or on the ground that his name has been included in the wrong list or on the ground that the relief granted to him has been calculated wrongly, may make a representation through the branch from which he received the loan or directly to the Grievance Redressal Officer of the lending institution concerned and every such representation shall be disposed of within 30 days of receipt thereof.
The Learned Counsel for the OPs submitted that the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer shall become final, therefore any farmer cannot approach the Forum constituted under the C.P. Act 1986 or the Civil Court challenging the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer. They particularly relied upon para. 10.2 of the said Scheme.
We think the contention of the Learned Counsel for OPs cannot be accepted. The lending institutions have a duty under the Scheme to extend the benefit provided under this Scheme to various eligible persons. What para.10.2 provides is an opportunity to the aggrieved farmer to make his representation before the Grievance Redressal Officer. It may be true that the farmer who is aggrieved cannot prefer any representation before any other higher officer of the lending institutions, after obtaining a decision from Grievance Redressal Officer. If the authorised officer of the lending institutions or the Grievance Redressal Officer commits mistake in arriving a particular decision, the aggrieved farmer is entitled to seek legal remedy. When the Central Government extended certain benefits to farmers they have a legal right to get that benefit if they are entitled to it. That legal right can be agitated before Civil Court or before Consumer Forum unless the jurisdiction of it is expressly or impliedly barred. The making of representation before the Grievance Redressal Officer or any decision by such officer does not impliedly or expressly barred the jurisdiction of Civil Court or this Forum. A complaint can be filed before Consumer Forum by aggrieved farmer if he alleges deficiency in service on the part of service provider. The lending institutions are providing banking service and it is not a free service and they charge for their service in one or other way. Under the Scheme a duty is casts on the financial institution to extend the benefits to eligible persons. The benefits extended to the farmers under this Scheme by the lending institutions, is reimbursed by the Central Government. Therefore any person eligible for debt waiver or debt relief can establish that he was not considered on improper reasons. Therefore we hold that this Forum can entertain the complaint and it has jurisdiction to decide it. Hence Point No.1 is held in negative.
Point No.2: Under the Scheme in para. 3.06 “Small Farmer” is defined as follows:
3.6 ‘Small Farmer’ means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and up to 2 hectares (5 acres).
The explanation under para.3, relevant for our purpose is as follows:
Explanation:
1. The classification of eligible farmers as per the above landholding criteria under the Scheme would be based on the total extent of land owned by the farmer either singly or as joint holder (in the case of an owner-farmer) or the total extent of land cultivated by the farmer (as tenant or share cropper), at the time of sanction of the loan, irrespective of any subsequent changes in ownership or possession.
Para.4 of the Scheme explains the eligible amount for debt waiver or debt relief and Para.5 & 6 explain who are entitled to debt waiver and debt relief. Para.7.1 prescribes the procedure for implementation of the Scheme. It reads as follows:
7.1 Every branch of a scheduled commercial bank, regional rural bank, co-operative credit institution, urban co-operative bank and local area bank covered under this Scheme shall prepare two lists, one consisting of ‘small and marginal farmers’ who are eligible for debt waiver and the second consisting of ‘other farmers’ who are eligible for debt relief under this Scheme. The lists shall include particulars of the landholding, the eligible amount and the amount of debt waiver or debt relief proposed to be granted in each case. The lists shall be displayed on the notice board of the branch of the bank/society on or before June 30, 2008.
Para.7.8 states that R.B.I shall be the Nodal Agency for the implementation of the Scheme in respect of scheduled commercial banks, urban co-operative banks and local area banks and that NABARD shall be the Nodal Agency in respect of regional rural banks and co-operative credit institutions. Para.9 of the Scheme provides for issue of certificate of debt waiver or debt relief to the eligible persons. Para. 10.1 of the Scheme prescribes that every lending institution shall be responsible for the correctness and integrity for the lists of farmers eligible under the Scheme, etc., Para.10.2 prescribes that the Grievance Redressal Officer shall receive the representation from aggrieved farmer and shall pass appropriate order on it.
In the present case, the complainant applied for Kissan Credit Card Limit on 02.03.2005. The particulars of his immovable properties mentioned in the relevant column of his application are as follows:
Location Extent
of property Sy. No. A-G
GagadavarahalliVillage 93 1.23
151 1.00
143 0.15
154 2.00
176 0.7½
_______
Total 5.05½
_______
It appears when the complainant came to know that he was not treated as ‘small farmer’ he made a representation dated 04.03.2009 to OP.1 and it appears that representation was sent to Grievance Redressal Officer for further action. Further it appears by letter dated 02.02.2010 the complainant was informed that as he was holding more than 5 acres of land as shown in his application for Kissan Credit Card, he was treated as ‘other farmer’ but not as ‘small farmer’. The complainant had in his representation to OP.1 stated that Sy. No. 154 measuring 2 acres shown in his application for Kissan Credit Card, was not belonging to him and he was holding only 3 acres 05½ guntas of land and it appears he had also filed supporting documents. The complainant has urged before us that the said Sy. No. 154 does not belong to him and it belongs to one Marappa Guntur who is not even related to him and that the complainant is not holding this land in any capacity.
The OPs could not produce any document to show that Sy. No. 154 shown to be have been measuring 2 acres shown in the application for Kissan Credit Card was really belonged to or cultivated by complainant. Their contention is that when the complainant described this land as one of the properties owned or taken on lease by him, the complainant cannot go back from his admission. In other words the complainant cannot dispute the extent of land shown in his application for Kissan Credit Card. Therefore the real question for our consideration is whether the complainant can contend that his holding was less than the holding mentioned in the application for Kissan Credit Card for availing the benefit under the Scheme.
It is true that an admission is a best piece of evidence against the person making it unless he gives a satisfactory explanation that it was wrongly made. The complainant submitted that the bank officials filled up the blanks in the application for Kissan Credit Card and he had not stated that Sy. No. 154 was belonging to him. He produced the R.T.C of Sy. No. 154 which shows that the said land belongs to one Marappa Guntur and it is in his personal cultivation through out. It is not the case of OPs that this land was taken on lease by complainant. It appears that the entire application is filled up by some official of OP.1. From the assessment of crop loan requirement made by the officials of OP.1 it is found that complainant was eligible for loan of Rs.64,000/- for cultivation of 2 acres 38 guntas in Sy. Nos. 93, 151 and 143 and out of it he was granted Rs.50,000/-. It is contended on behalf of the OPs that at the time of scrutiny of the application for Kissan Credit Card the lending institution need not verify the correctness of the particulars of land holding and its extent stated by applicant. Further it is contended that the lending institution is required to verify the title of the applicant only in respect of the land holdings for which financial assistance is given for growing crop. Therefore it is contended on behalf of OPs that they had no occasion to verify the title and possession over Sy. No. 154. On reading the memorandum of sanction of Kissan Credit Card Limit and the recommendation of the apprising officer of lending institution, as mentioned in the application for Kissan Credit Card, it appears to us that there is a duty on the apprising officer to verify that the applicant possesses the land as shown in the application and the relevant record/document have been obtained and verified and found correct. In the present case, the complainant has established that Sy. No. 154 shown in the application for Kissan Credit Card does not belong to him and he is not in possession of it. Therefore he has established that the entry in respect of this Sy. No. in the application filed by him showing that it was belonging to him is wrong.
The Scheme does not say that the declaration of land made by a debtor in his application requesting for financial assistance binds on him for determining whether he is entitled to the benefit under the Scheme. On the other hand the Scheme states that the holding of the land of a debtor is to be investigated before preparing the list of eligible farmers for the relief. Then it becomes the duty of Grievance Redressal Officer to find out the truth or otherwise of the explanation stated by the debtor to find out his actual extent of land held by him. In the present case, the Grievance Redressal Officer has not verified whether the land Sy. No. 52 really belongs to complainant or not. But he merely relied upon the entry made in the application for Kissan Credit Card Limit. Therefore we hold that the complainant has established that he is a ‘small farmer’ as defined under the Scheme. So we hold Point No.2 in Affirmative.
Point No.3: As complainant is found to be a ‘small farmer’ as defined under the Scheme, he is entitled to waiver of the entire ‘eligible amount’. Hence Point No.3 is held accordingly.
Point No.4: Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. OP No.1 and 2 shall extend the benefit of debt waiver to the complainant treating him as a ‘small farmer’ in respect of the entire ‘eligible amount’ under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008.
OP.3 shall reimburse OP No.1 and 2 of the debt amount waived in respect of complainant on receiving the required particulars, as provided in the said Scheme.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 30 day of December 2010.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
