DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2021
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member Date of Filing: 23/10/2019
CC/249/2019
Jayasudha
W/o.Sanal Kumar,
Palayamkadu, Olassery P.O.
Palakkad – 678 551 - Complainant
(By Authorised representative)
Vs
Peruvemba Service Co-operative Bank Ltd No. F 1648
Olassery Branch
Palakkad – 678 551,
Represented by its Branch Secretary - Opposite party
(By Adv. K. Dhananjayan)
O R D E R
By Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
Brief facts of the complaint.
1. The complainant avers that she availed and closed various agricultural loans from the opposite party bank on 06.09.2001, 28.05.2003 and 25.06.2006. In view of the farmers’ suicide, the Central Government waived agricultural loans in 247 districts, by way of Package for relief measures for the stressed farmers. Complainant is a marginal farmer and was entitled to the benefits of the waiver. Therefore her loans were waived. Subsequently the opposite party renewed the loan and raised demands for repayment of the loan. The complainant is aggrieved by the illegal renewal of her waived loan and renewed demand for Rs. 5,73,304/- by the opposite party.
2. The opposite party entered appearance. Version pleadings, in short is as follows. The complaint is barred by limitation. Not every agricultural loan is entitled to be waived under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme of the Central government. Complainant’s loan did not meet the criteria and parameters that required waiver under the Scheme. The complainant’s loan was never waived. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. On pleadings, the following issues arise for consideration:
1. Is the complaint barred by limitation?
2. Whether the loan availed by the complainant was waived automatically under the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme?
3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in recovering the agricultural loan disbursed to the complainant ?
4. Relief and cost ?
4. Both parties filed proof affidavits. Documentary evidence on the part of the complainant comprised of Exhibits A1 to A9. There are no documents from the part of the opposite party.
5. The complainant argued that by issuance of the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme, her loan was waived off and the bank did not have any rights whatsoever to proceed as against her. The opposite party argued raising the following issues :
1. The complaint is barred by limitation.
2. The complainant had not availed any service from the bank, but only loan.
3. Eligibility of the complainant to have her loan waived off under the scheme is to
be decided by the various Governmental agencies and not the complainant alone.
4. The opposite party had already waived an amount of Rs.69,000/- from out of the
amounts due from the complainant.
5.The complaint was filed subsequent to passing of award in an Arbitration
proceedings initiated against the complainant and any finding contrary to the
finding of the arbitrator would lead to absurdity and perversity.
Issue No. 1
6. The pleadings in the version filed by the opposite party invoking the bar of limitation is “3. After the financial year of 2008 – 2009, the Central Government as (has) neither extended the Scheme, not promulgated a new one. Therefore whatever may be the allegations of the Complainant that has to be filed within two years from 2009. Hence the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.”
7. The grievance of the complainant is not with regard to the Scheme per se. The complainant’s grievance is with regard to the demand for repayment of a loan that she claims to have been waived pursuant to the Scheme.
Hence we find that the complaint is not barred by limitation.
Issue No. 2
8. Complaint pleadings, precipitated, leaves no doubt what the case of the complainant is – her loan stood waived. From the date the Scheme came into effect her loan is closed. She is not bound to effect any repayment. Period. The bank filed a bland version without any cogent rebuttals except for general and routine pleadings. There are no specific contentions.
9. Be as it may, the complainant banks on the contents of Ext.A1 Scheme to claim that her loan stands waived and no amounts are due from her to the bank. Pursuant to Ext.A1 scheme, the Co-operative Registrar, Trivandrum had issued a circular bearing No.41/2008 which is produced and marked by the complainant as Ext.A3. Heavy reliance is made by the complainant on this document also.
10. In the various clauses contained in Ext.A3 there are various guidelines setting the various parameters for waiver of loan. On a part reading of Ext.A3 it may appear that the loan of the complainant is waived, but clause 18 of the Circular reads as follows :
18 : klIcW kwLw / _m¦v ISw FgpXn Xffen\v AÀlcmb \maam{X / sNdpInS IÀjIcpsSbpw, ISmizmk¯n\v AÀlcmb aÁv IÀjIcpsSbpw ]«nI \_mÀUv X¿mdm¡n \ÂInbn«pÅ \nÝnX {]t^mÀabn X¿mdmt¡Xpw, BbXv 30/6/2008\v ap¼mbn kwLw / _m¦v t\m«okv t_mÀUn {]ZÀin¸nt¡XpamWv.
11. The complainant had to prove that her case was considered by the bank as stated above in clause 18 and her name was published as an eligible farmer in the notice board of the bank. No evidence is forthcoming other than passionate assertions by the complainant or her power of attorney holder. Mere production of Ext.A1 & A3 would not corroborate the case of the complainant that her loan stood waived. Having failed to prove that her loan was considered for waiver and her name was in the proforma prepared by NABARD and that it was exhibited on the notice board of the bank as contemplated under clause 18 of Ext.A3, the complainant’s case that her loan stood waived as it was covered under Ext.A1 Scheme and Ext.A3 Circular is only bound to fail.
We therefore hold that the complainant has failed to prove that she is a beneficiary under Ext.A1 Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme.
Issue Nos.3 & 4.
12. In view of the findings in issue 2, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Consequently the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. The complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of November, 2021.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V.
President
Sd/-
Vidya A.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of RBI’s Circular dated 18/10/2006 regarding package of relief
measures for the debt stressed farmers of 25 districts in the states of AP,
Karnataka & Kerala
Ext.A2 – Copy of the loan ledger / account details regarding mortgage loan account
No.102230130000583
Ext.A3 – Copy of Circular bearing No.41/2008 dated 5/6/2008 issued by the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies.
Ext.A4 – Copy of communication bearing No.395/2019/SSO/Peruvambu SCB Group dated
15/3/2019
Ext.A5 – Copy of petition dated 1/4/2019 filed before the Join Registrar Palakkad by the
complainant
Ext.A6 – Original of information dated 26/3/2019 regarding loan bearing No.517 issued by
Peruvamba SCB.
Ext.A7 – Copy of communication dated 17/10/2019 issued by complainant to Peruvamba
SCB
Ext.A8 – Copy of communication dated 17/10/2019 issued by complainant to the Sale
Officer.
Ext.A9 – Original of communication bearing No.5131/2019/CRP1/LDis dated 9/12/2019
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
NIL
Cost :No cost allowed.
