ORDER.

By Sri. Jose V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite party to provide the benefit as per Coffee Debt Relief Package 2010 and circular dated 09.07.2010 worth Rs.6,46,904/- with 18% interest from 09.07.2010 and also direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant is a loanee of 1^st Opposite Party and availed loan of Rs.4,06,000/- under KCC Scheme on 08.03.2001 and Rs.57,000/- under Farm Development Scheme on 22.05.1998 from the 1^st Opposite Party. Both loans are invested for Coffee plantations. The Central Government announced benefits in favour of Coffee cultivators under the name Coffee Debt Relief Package 2010. The outstanding amount in KCC loan account of the Complainant was Rs. 7,76,631/- and outstanding in Farm development scheme loan was Rs.86,538/- on 30.06.2009. But the 1^st Opposite party without giving the said benefit, taken steps to recover the loan amount from the Complainant by the way of Revenue Recovery proceedings. The Complainant is a beneficiary of the said scheme and is entitled to get the benefit. As per the scheme, the Complainant is eligible for the benefits in pre-2002 loans in which the loanees are entitled for 50% of the total liability per farmer that is to be born by Government of India, additional 25% shall be waived by banks and balance loan amount shall be rescheduled by the Complainant. The package is to be applied to the outstanding amount as on 30.06.2009. The 1^st Opposite Party not provided this benefit to the complainant and aggrieved by this, this complaint is filed to direct the Opposite Parties to provide Rs.6,46,904/- (benefit of KCC loan is Rs.5,82,000/- and benefit of Farm Development loan is Rs.64,904/-) as the benefit declared by Government of India in Coffee Debt Relief Package 2010 and to pay cost and compensation to the Complainant due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

3. On receipt of complaint, notice issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of 1^st Opposite party, the 1^st Opposite Party contended that the Complainant availed the KCC loan not only for cultivation of coffee alone but for the crops like pepper, arecanut, and coconut cultivation also. The other loan is a term loan for constructing drying yard and warehouse. The Complainant is not eligible for the amount as mentioned in the complaint. The Complainant is not eligible for CDRP 2010 in pre-2002 loan and not entitled for 50% of loan liability from government and 25% from bank since the said loans are not only for coffee purpose alone. In the version of 2^nd Opposite Party, 2^nd Opposite party also contended that the Complainant availed the KCC loan not only for the purpose of coffee cultivation but for pepper, arecanut and coconut cultivation also. The other loan is availed for construction of drying yard and warehouse.

Hence he is not entitled for the relief as per the clause 1(i) of the CDRP 2010, but he is only eligible 10% from government side and 10% from 1^st Opposite Party since it comes under crop loans clause I(ii) of the package, and the said benefits were already given to the Complainant. Hence the 10% of the KCC loan ie Rs.41,250/- was credited to the KCC Loan account of Complainant and 10% of the other loan ie Rs.8,654/- was credited in the term loan account of the Complainant on 13.03.2011. And further stated that the Complainant approached the Hon'ble High Court for the same relief wide WP(C) No.5975/2011(V) and the Hon'ble High Court on 08.04.2011 disposed the same directing the Complainant to remit the entire amount with interest and expenses in 8 monthly installments falling due on or before 30.04.2011 and the Opposite Party is also directed to keep in abeyance all further proceedings till that time. In case of default, the Opposite Party can proceed with. Since the complainant failed to comply the order of the Hon'ble High Court he has no right to file this complaint and prayed before the Forum to dismiss the complaint with cost of this Opposite Party

4. The 2^nd Opposite Party further stated in his version that he does not know about the said loan. The averment in the complaint that the above loan are availed for coffee cultivation alone is denied by this Opposite party. As per the statement of 1^st Opposite Party the KCC loan was availed by the Complainant not only for coffee cultivation but also for pepper, arecanut and coconut cultivation. The other loan was for Rs.57,000/- for drying yard and warehouse and further stated that as per the statement of 1^st Opposite party he has allowed a benefit of 10% of the total due amount that will come around Rs.41,250/- which was credited in to Complainant's KCC Loan account No.08348595000582 on 13.03.2011 and further stated that the Complainant is not entitled to get any further relief from this Opposite party as prayed in the complaint and prayed before the Forum to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to this Opposite Party.

5. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side

of Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and he is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to A3. 1^st Opposite party filed proof affidavit and is examined as OPW1 and documents are marked as Exts.B1 to B5. 2^nd Opposite party not adduced any oral evidence. Ext.A1(8) is the Central Government Coffee Debt Relief Package 2010, as per Ext.A1(8) clause 1(I) the pre-2012 loans means special coffee term loan and the waiver is 50% of the total liability subject to a maximum benefit of Rs.5,00,000/-

per farmer to be borne by Government of India. An additional 25% shall be waived by bank and balance shall be rescheduled. Ext.A1(3) to A1(7) is the minutes of the meeting of the

monitoring committee on implementation of the CDRP 2010 which was held in the Ministry of Commerce on 09.07.2010 in which clause 3 of sanction order (II) it was certified that the pree 2002 loans other than Special Coffee Term Loans accounts categorized as NPAs, AUCL or referred to DRT are also eligible under package as the CCEA note contained such provision and in clause 4 of the sanction order (ii) (sub clause) it is further clarified that “loan taken by the coffee planters for unrelated purpose like rubber plantations, coconut plantation, paddy cultivations, ginger cultivations and business loan etc but classified by the bank as coffee loans are excluded from the package. In crop loan, 20% of waiver of liability with 10% each being borne by Government of India and banks respectively. Subject to a maximum benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- per farmer. Post 2002 term loans, waiver of 10% of the total liability subject to a maximum benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- to be borne by the Government of India. In clause 4 sub clause (ii) it is stated that loan taken by the coffee planters for unrelated purpose like Rubber plantation, Coconut plantation, Paddy cultivation, Ginger cultivation and Business loan etc but classified by the bank as coffee loans is excluded from the package. The mode of implementation of the package shall be as follows:

7. The Government would release the Government share of the liability to the coffee board. The banks will first give benefit of the waiver to the accounts of the growers and claim the same from the coffee board. The Coffee Board would scrutinize the claim of the bank and reimburse the amount. Admittedly, this Complainant had went to Hon'ble High Court of Kerala with writ petition and the Hon'ble High Court granted time to pay of the amounts in installments. The Complainant raised the issue of waiver under CDRP 2010 of loan there also. In the issue HC made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the bank seeking waiver of interest/ penal interest and expenses to the possible extent. It is made clear that the bank will be at liberty to consider the same and to take appropriate decision despite the directions issued in this judgment. So the Complaint is at liberty to file this complaint in the Consumer Forum to get the benefit under the waiver scheme of CDRP 2010. In the cross examination of 1^st Opposite Party, the OPW1 deposed that the Complainant is a coffee planter and the loan is availed for agricultural purpose. The Forum noticed that drying yard and warehouse is intent for drying agricultural products ie coffee and storing it in warehouse. The OPW1 also stated that the Complainant did not have Rubber plantation, paddy cultivation and ginger cultivation. The OPW1 do not know whether the complainant have coconut plantation. So the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party failed to prove that the Complainant have taken the loan for other plantation in addition to coffee. 2^nd Opposite Party did not adduce any oral evidence also. The Complainant is a coffee planter undoubtedly. The Complainant availed loan in the year 2001. The package shall apply to all outstanding amounts as on 30.06.2009. In pre-2002 category, it is applicable to special coffee term loan, and for the loans other than SCTL also. Unless and until the Opposite Parties prove that the Complainant is taken loan for other plantation like Rubber plantation, coconut plantations, paddy cultivation ginger cultivations and business loans etc other than the coffee cultivation, the Complainant is entitled to get the benefits of pre-2002 category under the CDRP 2010. The Ext.B3 document is a hypothecation deed where in the 2^nd page it is written in handwriting that the credit should be utilized for coffee, coconut, pepper, arecanut it is a mixed crop, it comes under the loan other than SCTL. The Complainant utilized the loan for coffee cultivation only. It is evident from the testimony of OPW1 also. So by analysing the entire evidences, the Forum found that the complainant is entitled to get benefit under pre-2002 category in CDRP 2010, scheme. The 1^st Opposite Party gave waiver under post-2002 category wrongly without any basis. The Forum is of the view that the act of 1^st Opposite Party is nothing but deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

8. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant, the

complainant is entitled to get full waiver under CDRP 2010 and to get cost and compensation and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to grand the same and to pay the cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 1^st Opposite Party is directed to give the benefit of waiver of 25% liability for the total outstanding balance as on 30.06.2009 excluding the amount already credited in the account of the Complainant and 2^nd Opposite Party is directed to give the waiver of 50% liability of total outstanding balance as on 30.06.2009 excluding the amount already credited in the account of the Complainant. 1^st Opposite Party shall first give the waiver of 75% liability of the total outstanding balance in the account of the Complainant as on 30.06.2009 and 1^st Opposite Party can later reimburse the 2^nd Opposite Party's share of 50% from 2^nd Opposite Party after giving proper representation to 2^nd Opposite Party. 1^st Opposite Party shall reschedule the balance amount outstanding after waving 75% in the account of Complainant, if he desire so. Opposite Parties are jointly and severally also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand ) only as cost of the proceedings to the Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party is also directed not to impose any interest for the remaining 25% of the dues from 30.06.2009, since the entitled benefit is not provided to the Complainant in time. The Opposite Parties shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the whole amount.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16 day of April 2015.

Date of Filing:31.08.2013

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. M.O. Mathew. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Gopalan Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Bathery.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1(9 pages) Letter.

A2. Copy of High Cour Order. dt:08.04.2011.

A3. Copy of Letter. dt:16.03.2012.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

B1. Statement of A/c for General Advance for the period 08.03.2001 - 17.12.2013.

B2. Statement of A/c for General Advance for the period 22.05.1998 – 17.12.2013.

B3(9 pages) Agreement and Deed of Hypothecation for Kisan Credit Card.

B4. Copy of High Court Order. dt:08.04.2011.

B5. Copy of Letter.