These complaints coming up before us for final hearing on 8-04-10 in the presence of Sri N.P.Reddy, advocate for complainants and of                        Sri M. Venkateswarlu, advocate for opposite parties 1 & 2, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri T. Anjaneyulu, President:-         These batch of complaints are filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by farmers seeking directions on the opposite parties for giving relief under agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme, 2008 promulgated by the Government of India in respect of their loans sanctioned and to award compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation.

        The brief facts of case are that, the complainants are  residents of Kantheru village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur district and farmers by profession.   They are all members of Kantheru Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society.   They are all small farmers.   All the farmers have availed agricultural crop loan from 1^st opposite party which is a co-operative society of Kantheru village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur district which is functioning under the control of 2^nd opposite party Bank.   All the farmers have availed agricultural crop loan from opposite party Bank by giving declaration inrespect of land possessed by them.   The details of loan availed and data of disbursement is shown below as per case wise:

        While so, the Government of         India has declared agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme, 2008, in view of same the opposite parties have also received guidelines and kept quite without applying the scheme and giving relief to farmers as per the guidelines issued in respect of applicability of scheme.  The complainants are entitled for relief of waiver of their entire loan amount whereas the opposite party without applying the scheme to them dodging the matter which is causing mental agony, pain and suffering to farmers. Thus the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaints.

        The 1^st opposite party has filed version/affidavit through its secretary.   He states that their society is registered under A.P. Co-op Societies Act VII of 1964, as per Sections 22 and 61 of A.P.C.S Act and when dispute arises it should be referred to the Registrar for redressal.   The complainants have failed to follow the said procedure.  

        The complainants are all members of their society and availed loan for the purpose of raising chilli crop as on the date mentioned in the complaint.  It is true that the Government of India have introduced the debt waiver scheme for farmers in 2008 in the name of “Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008” fixing certain norms and eligibility criteria for waiver of loans availed/defaulted by the farmers.   As per the norms prescribed in the said scheme the complainants are not eligible for waiver of loan availed by him/her.  The guideline No.4(1) of scheme reads as under,

4.1           The amount eligible for debt waiver or debt relief as the case may be shall comprise of

a)    In the case of a short term production loan, the loan amount of such loan (together with applicable interest).

1)        disbursed upto March, 31^st 2007 and overdue as on December, 31^st 2007 and remaining unpaid until February, 29^th 2008.

As per the said guideline No.4(1)(a)(1) of the said scheme the loan amount availed by complainants from opposite party does not come under the category of eligible amount.

The loan availed by complainants have not become overdue.  It would become overdue from the date of disbursement but not as on 31-12-07.  This aspect is amply clarified and cautioned by NABARD vide letter No. NB/AP/RO/CPD/5118-A-40/2008-2009 dated 13-06-08 stating that “due dates of crop loans cannot be changed under the Agricultural Debt Waiver/Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.   The Banks should continue to follow the practice prevailing before the introduction of Agricultural Debt Waiver/Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 in regard to fixing of due dates under the said scheme.    The NABARD is the Nodal Agency in respect of Regional Rural Banks and co-operative credit institutions vide guideline No.7(B).   Hence, NABARD is competent authority to issue clarification.   Further, the A.P. State            Co-operative Bank which is financing institution at State level vide                    lr No.UB/Adv/Sect/F.290/1022 dated 14-06-08 clarified that the clarification given by NABARD with regard to due dates i.e., one year from the date of disbursement shall be followed under CKCC.  The practice being followed from the beginning is the period of one year from the date of disbursement.   As the guideline No.4(1)(a)(1) of the said scheme, the loan amount availed by the complainants from the opposite party does not come under the category of eligible amount.          As the loans availed by the complainants were not overdue within the ambit of guideline No.4(1)(a)(i), the waiver is not applied.   Therefore, no deficiency of service is committed by this opposite party.

As per guideline No. 10(2) of the said scheme, the Deputy General Manager (Admn)., the DGM (C.O., Tenali), G.D.C.C. Bank is appointed as grievances redressal officer to receive the representations from the aggrieved farmers and to pass appropriate orders thereon.   The complainants have not chosen to avail this opportunity.

It is further submitted that as against the total number of 554 loanees in the society of this opposite party only 14 loanees got eligibility under the debt waiver scheme 2008 and their loans were waived.   Remaining 540 loanees were not eligible and they were not extended the facility of debt waiver and out of these 540 loaness only 9 loanees have approached this Forum with wrong claims.   Further the Government of India have introduced a scheme of incentives of Rs.5,000/- to those loanee farmers who were deprived of the benefit of debt waiver 2008 scheme and the complainants have availed the benefit of the incentive of Rs.5,000/-.   Copy of the G.O.Ms.No.291 dated 3-11-08 issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh is submitted herewith.  

Further it is submitted that this opposite party has approached the Hon’ble High Court of AP in W.P.M.P.No.1064/2009 in W.P.No.848/2009 seeking directions to the respondents therein viz., NABARD and other concerned, to provide its members in cases like the complainants, for waiver of loans availed by them.   

The Hon’ble High Court is pleased to issue the following orders:

“There shall be interim direction to the effect that the respondents shall extend the benefit to the members of the petitioner’s societies, strictly in accordance with Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and in particular with reference to the dates mentioned in clause ‘4’ thereof.

Even as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of waiver of loan availed by him/her and opposite party is restricted to extend the facility of debt waiver as per the guideline No.4(1)(a)(i) issued under the debt waiver scheme, 2008 and therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.   The copies of                        1) agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme, 2008 2) Letter of NABARD 3) Letter of A.P. State Co-op Bank 4) Interim direction of Hon’ble High Court of AP are filed herewith for perusal of Forum.   Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

The 2nd opposite party is the Guntur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Guntur has also filed its version through its chief Executive Officer (General Manager) on similar lines as that of                      1^st opposite party.   They need not be mentioned as it amounts to repetition.

Both sides have filed their affidavits apart from marking documents.   On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 and A-2 are marked and on behalf of opposite parties Exs.B-1 to B-6 are marked.

Now the points for determination are that,

1.        Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints?

2.        Whether the debt relief scheme, 2008 is applicable to the loans availed by these complainants and are entitled for waiver of the same or not?

3.        Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party Bank?

4.        To what relief?

POINT No.1:-   The opposite parties have raised objection for entertaining these complaints by this Forum on the ground that as per the provisions of Co-operative Society Act the dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for redressal and secondly as per the guidelines of scheme the opposite parties have appointed grievance redressal officer to receive representations as such they ought to have made representations to the said officer instead of coming to the Forum.

        Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly lays down that the provisions of Act are in addition to but not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force.  Therefore, the Act provides additional means of obtaining remedy by a consumer but if the remedy is barred under any other Act, then the various Forums constituted under the Act cannot grant the remedy prayed for.

        In 1999 (2) CPR 112 in a case between Karamchari Griah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited vs. Niranjanlal Mehar and in (1996) 3 CPR 236 in a case between Pondicherry Central Government Employees Co-operative Housing Society vs. Dr.S. Sabesan, it has been observed that the Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to entertain the disputes pertaining to deficiency of service.   In the instant case also the complainants being farmers alleges deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in not extending the benefit of scheme.  

        There is a direct decision on the subject which is reported in 1998 (1) CPR 576 by the State Commission of West Bengal at Kolcutta wherein the respondent society Bank refused to give benefit announced by the Government of India in the year 1990 under agricultural and rural debt scheme which covered the loans of public sector and regional rural Banks including State Co-operative Bank and Central Co-operative Bank, Primary Co-Operative Society.   The State Commission has observed that the farmers who were granted loan by the respective Banks are consumers and can approach the Consumer Forum for necessary relief.

        In view of the above said position of law on the subject, we hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain these complaints as they do fall within the ambit of term consumer and alleges deficiency of service on the part of opposite party Bank.   The point is answered in favour of complainants.    

POINTS 2&3:-  For better understanding the issue involved in the case it is necessary to go through the Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 announced by the Government of India.   Some salient features of the scheme may be referred which are relevant for the purpose of case.

1.    Introduction:

1.1           The Finance Minster, in his Budget speech for 2008-09, announced a Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme for farmers.

1.2           Guidelines for implementation of the Scheme are given below.

2.    SCOPE:

2.1          The scheme will cover direct agricultural loans extended to marginal and small farmers’ and ‘other farmers’ by Scheduled Commercial Banks, Regional Rural Banks, Cooperative Credit Institutions (including Urban Cooperative Banks) and Local Area Banks (herein after referred to compendiously as “lending institutions”) as indicated in the Guidelines.

2.2           The scheme shall come into force with immediate effect.

3.    Definitions:

3.1          Direct Agricultural Loans means Short Term Production Loans and Investment Loans provided directly to farmers for agricultural purposes.   This would also include such loans provided directly to groups of individual farmers (for example Self Help Groups and Joint Liability Groups), provided Banks maintain disaggregated data of the loan extended to each farmer belonging to that group.

3.2           Short Term Production Loan means a loan given in connection with the raising of crops which is to be repaid within 18 months.   It will include working capital loan, not exceeding Rs.1 lakh, for traditional and non traditional plantations and horticulture.

3.3           ________

3.4           __________

3.5           Marginal Farmer means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land upto 1 hectare (2.5 acres).

3.6           Small farmer means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and upto 2 hectares (5 acres)

3.7           Other Farmer means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 2 hectares (more than 5 acres).

Explanation:

1.    ______

2.   _______

3.    In case of a farmer who has obtained investment credit for allied activities where the principal loan amount does not exceed Rs.50,000/-, he would be classified as “small and marginal farmer” and, where the principal amount exceeds Rs.50,000/- he would be classified as ‘other farmer’, irrespective in both cases of the size of the land holding, if any.

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:

          a) In the case of a short-term production loan, the                          amount of such loan (together with applicable interest);

          i) Disbursed upto March 31, 2007 and overdue as on                    December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until                                        February 29, 2008.

          ii) restructured and rescheduled by Banks in 2004              and in 2006 through the special packages announced                      by the Central Government, whether overdue                 or not; and

          iii) restructured and rescheduled in the normal course                     upto March 31, 2007 as per applicable RBI guidelines                      on account of natural calamities, whether overdue

               or not.

5. Debt Waiver:

    5.1 In the case of a small or marginal farmer the entire                            eligible amount shall be waived.

6. Debt Relief:

     6.1   In the case of ‘other farmers’,  there will be a one time settlement (OTS) Scheme under which the farmer will be given a rebate of 25 per cent of the ‘eligible amount’ subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of 75 percent of the eligible amount’;

In pursuance of Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 announced by the Government of India and in order to have effective implementation of scheme and to achieve the objectives there under various financial institutions and Banks have issued circulars.  One such circular dated 14-06-08 got issued by the A.P. State Co-op Bank Limited vide Ex.B-4  which reads in modification of para 2(a) of their letter 2^nd cited, it is advised to follow the clarification given by NABARD with regard to due dates i.e., one year from the date of disbursement as being followed under CKCC.    This circular is issued to all the General Manager’s of District Co-op Banks.   Earlier there is a circular dated 13-06-08 from National Bank for agriculture and Rural development issued to the Managing Director of A.P. State Cooperative Bank vide Ex.B-3.   The text of the letter reads as follows:

        “Please refer to your letter No.ADV/Sectt/2008-091013 dated 05-06-08 addressed to General Managers of DCCB and instructions issued to the Nodal Officers on the revised guidelines of Debt Waiver/Debt Relief Scheme based on the discussions the MD, APSCB had at Vishakapatnam on 05-06-08.   In this regard, we also invite a reference to the discussions you had with our MD on 12-06-08 at Regional Office, Hyderabad, wherein it was clarified that the due dates of Crop Loans cannot be changed for the sake of claiming benefit under the Agriculture Debt Waiver/Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.   The Banks should continue to follow the practice prevailing before the introduction of Agriculture Debt Waiver/Debt Relief Scheme 2008, in regard to fixing of due dates”.

        It is also relevant here to mention that 1^st opposite party represented by its President and some other Primary Agricultural Societies have jointly filed Writ Petition No.848/09 before the Hon’ble High Court of AP and vide W.P.M.P.No.1064/2009 obtained interim directions (vide Ex.B-5) which reads as follows:

        “There shall be interim direction to the effect that respondents shall extend the benefit to the members of petitioners-societies, strictly in accordance with Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and in particular with reference to the dates mentioned in clause ‘4’ thereof”.   

       The copy of G.O.Ms.No.291, dated 03-11-08 is also placed on record vide Ex.B-6 which speaks about reimbursement of Rs.5,000/- to the farmers who are not benefited under the Government of India debt waiver scheme, 2008.

         The learned counsel for opposite parties while relying upon Exs.B-3 and B-4 the circular issued from NABARD and A.P. State Cooperative Bank stress upon the point that one year period is to be computed from the date of disbursement of loan so as to see whether they have become over due by 31-12-07 or not for its eligibility under the scheme as per the guidelines issued.   He has specifically pointed out that there was also discussion about this point in the meeting held at regional office at Hyderabad wherein it was clarified that the due dates of crop loans cannot be changed for the sake of claiming benefit under the Agricultural Debt Waiver/Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.   The Banks should continue to follow the practice prevailing before the introduction of agriculture debt waiver/debt relief scheme, 2008, in regard to fixing of due dates.   According to him if the said criteria are applied no loan would become over due by 31-12-07 as such no waiver is granted.   

        Further it is pointed out that as per G.O.Ms.No.291, dated                    03-11-08 issued by Government a sum of Rs.5,000/- is given as concession to the farmers in these cases.

        The preamble of the order under G.O.Ms.No.291 reads as follows:

1.       The Government of India, as part of the Union Budget                   2008-09, with a view to mitigate the problems faced by the farmers in the country, has announced a Debt waiver and Debt relief scheme to the farmers which has been implemented all over the Country by 30^th June, 2008.

2.       On a review of the matter, Government observed that about 63.41 lakh agricultural loan accounts in the State got benefit under the “Debt waiver/Relief Scheme” of the Government of India.   However, an estimated 32 lakh farmers, who availed crop loans were deprived of any benefit under the scheme, as they had already repaid the loans by the date of announcement of Government of India Loan Waiver Scheme on 29-02-08.

3.       It has, therefore, been decided by the Government to provide an ‘incentive’ to the farmers who have repaid their ‘crop loans’ in time under the Rythu Protsahaka Utsavaalu.   The incentive will be extended by way of credit to their crop loan account as per the following terms and conditions:

a)      Only crop loans borrowers (excluding agricultural gold loan and agricultural term loan borrowers) are eligible for the incentive under the scheme.

b)      The farmer borrower should not have got any benefit under “Debt waiver/Relief Scheme, 2008” of the Government of India.

c)       In respect of multiple loans or joint loans, where benefits have accrued under the Government of India scheme, the farmer(s) become ineligible under the present scheme.

d)      The farmers will get reimbursement of the actual amount repaid to the Bank or Rs.5,000/- which ever is less.

        The 2^nd limb of the order do reveal that an estimate of 32 lakh farmers who availed crop loans were deprived of benefit under the scheme as they do already repaid the loans by the date of announcement by the Government of India loan waiver scheme on               29-02-08.  Therefore, the Government in order to provide an incentive to the farmers those who have repaid crop loans in time, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is being reimbursed to them.

        It is surprising to note that though all the farmers herein have not repaid their loans, still the opposite party Bank has reimburse sum of Rs.5,000/- to each farmer in pursuance of the said G.O.Ms.No.291 dated 3-11-08, whereas, G.O. reads that such incentive should be extended only in case where the loan amount has already been paid by the time of its announcement.   The learned counsel for the opposite party tries to clarify the situation that the incentive announced under the said G.O. where debt relief scheme is not applicable.   In our considered view this is not correct interpretation.   The incentive announced under the G.O. to the farmers where they have already paid the loan amount by the time of announcement of the scheme.

        Now in the back drop of aforesaid situation the cases on hand to be examined with relevancy to the guidelines as to the applicability of the scheme.   The basic guidelines stipulated under the scheme i.e.,

1.        All the loans should be disbursed prior to 31-03-07

2.        They shall be over due as on 31-12-07.

3.        And remaining unpaid until 29-02-08.

        The learned counsel for opposite party though admits that all the loans in these batch cases were disbursed prior to                   31-03-07, they have not become over due as on 31-12-07 and though remains unpaid till 29-02-08.   Thus as the complainants are not fulfilling the 2^nd condition as enumerated under point 4.1(a)(1) of the scheme, the Bank as rightly refused to apply the scheme.

        The learned counsel for complainants made emphasis that while applying the scheme, scope and object to be achieved there under is to be taken into consideration by the field level officers as the Union of India announced the scheme as a welfare measure in order to give some relief to all kind of farmers who are suffering from financial constraints.   According to him the scheme was announced during budget session of 2008-2009.  All the complainants herein have availed gold loans prior to 31-12-07 and they remain unpaid till 29-2-08 as such, they are deemed to be over due by 31-12-07.   Hence, they fulfill all the requisite conditions as such entitled for waiver of the debt. 

        We have given due consideration to the submissions made by both sides.   The debt relief scheme, 2008 is undoubtedly a welfare measure and announced in order to give relief to the farmers those who availed loans much prior to 31-03-07.   In this context we got to see what is significance attached to those cut off dates as fixed in guidelines in respect of its disbursal, over due and remains unpaid.   The gap in between the period of disbursal and over due is 9 months only.   If the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party is accepted that one year period is to be computed from the date of sanction of loan, in order to evaluate over due date, the loans disbursed in the month of January, February or March, 2007 would not be overdue by 31-12-07.  If that is the position,  why cut of date is given in the guideline as 31-12-07.  For illustration if all loans sanctioned of this kind during months of January to March, 2007, no loan would become overdue by 31-12-07, and it defeat the very object of moratorium.  

        The opposite party emphasized on the 2^nd limb of the stipulation i.e., over due date as 31-12-07, the overdue date 31-12-07 is applicable as such 3^rd limb of stipulation i.e., 29-02-07 is also fulfilled.   That means the guidelines would be made applicable for those loans which were availed prior to 31-12-07.  

If that is the case, the cut of date as 31-3-07 fixed in the 1^st limb of guidelines loses its significance.  The opposite party intends to give meaning to the word overdue as on 31-12-07 from the date of sanction of loan one year period.   But as stated supra no loan would become over due by the said date which was availed after 31-12-06 and prior to 31-3-07, consequently, the over due date as on 31-12-07 also loses its significance.   Further more, the aforesaid guidelines do not specifically stipulate the overdue period to be construed as one year preceding to it i.e., the date of sanction of loan if that was intendment of the scheme it should have been incorporated as one of such condition.

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for complainants that all farmers in the above referred cases have availed  loans prior to 31-3-07 and by the date of announcement of the scheme, they remained unpaid and once they remain unpaid by the date 29-02-08,  they are deemed to be overdue by 31-02-07, as such all the conditions are fulfilled.  In the light of discussion made above, we are of considered opinion that overdue date as 31-12-07 shall not be construed from the date of sanction of the loan by computing one year period preceding to the said date as contended by opposite party.   This kind of interpretation of the scheme is uncalled for.  As all the farmers availed agricultural crop loans (short term loans) prior to              31-03-07, on giving land declarations and admittedly they are all small farmers and all their loans remains unpaid as on 29-02-08 by the time of announcement of the scheme, they are deemed to be overdue by 31-12-07 as such they are eligible for waiver of the debt.   Non application of the scheme to these farmers does amount to deficiency of service.   However, we decline to grant any compensation for the alleged mental agony, pain and suffering as the scheme itself is in the shape of monitory relief to the extent applicable on the categories of loans availed. 

        In the result, all complaints are allowed, consequently the following directions.

1. The opposite party shall apply the debt relief scheme, 2008 to the loans availed by the complainants vide their respective account numbers and grant waiver instead of giving reimbursement of Rs.5,000/-.

2.  We further direct the opposite party to pay costs of         Rs.500/-

     in each case.

3. The aforesaid directions shall be carried out within a period six   weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Dictated to steno typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 22nd day of                 April, 2010.

Sd/-XXX                                            Sd/-XXX                                        Sd/-XXX           

MEMBER                                         MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral evidence is adduced on either side

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant in CC.No.91/10 :

For Opposite Party: 

For Complainant in CC.No.92/10 to 99/10 :

For Opposite Party: 

                                                                                                             Sd/-XXX

                                                                                                            PRESIDENT