By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party for the benefit under Debt Relief scheme which is not considered by the Opposite Party
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is an agriculturist who was under the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme as per the order of the Debt Relief Commission 3253/2007/WD dated 27.09.2007. It is expressly stated in the order that 50% of the loan amount fixed is to be remitted by the Complainant. The Complainant received the order on 31.5.2010 and Rs.25,000/- was remitted by the Complainant before the expiry of the period. When the Opposite Party was approached they were not ready to give the benefit as ordered by the Debt Relief Commission. The denial of the order of the Debt Relief Commission waiving 50% of the loan amount due from the Complainant is a deficiency in service it is to be compensated along with cost. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give Complainant the benefit of Rs.63,500/- and interest from the date of order under Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission 2008. along with cost and compensation of Rs.52,000/-.
3. Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The complaint itself is not maintainable. The review petition filed by the Complainant before the commission was dismissed the order of the Debt Relief Commission was not complied by the Complainant. The Complainant failed to remit Rs.63,500/-, 50% of the total amount due at that time out of total sum Rs.127,000/-.
4. The actual facts of the dispute are revealed in this complaint. The transaction between the Complainant and Opposite Party are purely bared by provisions. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
5. Points that are to be decided:-
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. Relief and cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Party, Exts. A1 to A4 and B1 are the documents. The oral testimony of the Complainant and Opposite Party is also brought out in this case.
7. The dispute in issue is related to the benefit of the order of the Debt Relief Commission. Exts.A1 and A2 are marked subject to proof. On examination of the Opposite Party as OPW1 it is admitted that Ext.A2 document is the general order issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Society and it affects 368 loanies. Copy of Ext.A1 is also received by the 1st Opposite Party. In Ext.A1 it is stipulated that the award of the commission is effective for the part of the loans which were not yet cleared by the debtor. The benefit is also considerable in such cases as per this circular. The order of the Registrar, Co-operative Society is liable to be enforced by the primary societies as stated by the 1st Opposite Party on examining him as OPW1. C.G(2)43910/08 is the order issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Society. Ext.A4 series is the information sent to the Complainant by the Information Officer, Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The question No.1 under right of information is answered that CG(2)43910/08 dated 01.11.2010 is binding those societies and bank which are coming under the Right of Information Act.
8. The information given by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies also reaffirmed that the loan amount of the complainant which is due is having the privilege of order of CG(2)43910/08 and this order is sent to the Complainant from the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram. The Complainant remitted only Rs. 25,000/- towards the liability of the 50% of the total loan due that is fixed as Rs.1,27,000/-.
9. Ext.B1 is only a final order on the review application of the Complainant by the state farmers debt relief commission. As per order of Registrar of Co-operative Societies the debtor who failed to remit the amount on the due date as directed by the State Debt Relief Commission is also liable to get benefit of the order. The contention of the Complainant is that the order of the State commission was received by him lately. As per Ext.B1 the farmers share to be remitted in the bank was by 31.03.2009. The Complainant would have remitted Rs.63,500/- by 31.03.2009 and the 50% of its liability was yet to be completed till the specified date of the Debt Relief Commission. The order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies also confirmed that the farmers who failed to remit in time is also liable for benefit. The Complainant would have remitted Rs.38,500/- for closing of his liability share of Rs.63,500/- before the relevant period. According to the Complainant the order of the State commission was receive by him on 31.5.2010.
10. The Complainant's prayer is for the benefit of Rs.63,500/- but his contribution towards receiving of the benefit of the debt relief commission is not fully paid. The Complainant is only entitled to get the benefit of Rs.63,500/- if remaining portion of his share amount is remitted in the Opposite Party' Bank.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Complainant is directed to remit Rs.38,500/- (Rupees Thirty Eight thousand and Five hundred only) and its interest as per norms of the bank from 31.5.2010 the date of receiving the order in the Opposite Party bank. On payment of this amount, the 1st Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant the benefit of Rs.63,500/- (Rupees Sixty Three thousand and Five hundred only) as order by Debt Relief Commission. This is to be complied by the Complainant and Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 23rd June 2012.
Date of filing: 24.01.2012.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/ Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Surendran Complainant
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. M.O. Mathew Branch Manager, Sulthan Bathery Service Co-operative Bank.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Letter. dt:01.11.2010.
A2. Copy of the Final Order. dt:27.09.2007.
A3. Application under Right To Information Act 2005. dt:31.3.2012.
A4. Letter. dt:09.05.2012.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
B1. Copy of the Review Final Order. dt:06.01.2011
