KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 279/11
JUDGMENT DATED: 29.11.11
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
1. P.J. Francis
S/o Joseph, Pallivathukkal House,
20 Acre Kara, Pottankad P.O.,
Bysonvally Village,
Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District.
: APPELLANTS
2. P.J. Varghese
S/o Joseph, Pallivathukkal House,
20 Acre Kara, Pottankad P.O.,
Bysonvally Village,
Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District.
(By Advs. Padayattee Yeldo and Others)
Vs.
Union Bank of India,
represented by the Branch Manager, : RESPONDENT
Mermaid Mall, Nadayar Road,
Munnar P.O., K.D.H. village,
Devikulam Taluk, Idukki District.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
The appellants are the complainants in CC No.191/10 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.
2. The complaint stands allowed in part. The Forum has directed the opposite party/Bank to conduct an impartial enquiry with respect to the area of the property possessed and owned by the complainants by collecting documents from the concerned authorities like Village Officer, Assistant Cardamom Settlement Officer etc, and if it was found that the complainants are having less than 5 acres of land, the application must be forwarded to the Government for including the complainant’s loan for Waiver as per the Debt Waiver Scheme of the Government and that further proceedings against the complainant and their property should be kept in abeyance.
3. The case of the complainants, who are brothers, is that they jointly applied for an agricultural loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from the opposite party bank. The 1st petitioner is a marginal farmer who possess 2 acres of Patta land and the 2nd petitioner has no land of his own. It is also alleged that loan amount was withdrawn with somebody else forging the signature of the petitioners in collusion with in Bank authorities. On account of agricultural failure the entire loan amount is due. The petitioners were entitled for the Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme declared by the Government of India as the petitioners were having property less than 5 acres. On 27.8.2008 the petitioner approached the Bank Manager, who told that his predecessor who reported the names and accounts of the farmers eligible for getting the benefits of the scheme, omitted to include the name of the complainants and hence they would not be able to get the benefit of the scheme. Thereupon, the complainants filed a petition before the Union Finance Minister Sri. P Chidambaram on 27.9.08 and the Minister ordered an enquiry. The opposite parties created a false memo to show that the 2nd complainant has mortgaged 5.75 acres of land that may be leased to him in future. Thereafter a letter was received from the opposite parties intimating that the eligible amount/ relief under the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme as 25% of the overdue amount which comes Rs.44,802/-. It is the contention of the complainants that the 2nd complainant is not in ownership and possession of 5.75 acres of land. It is submitted that the 2nd petitioner had approached the Assistant Cardamom Settlement Officer, Kumily for lease of land for Cardamom cultivation and that the above officer directed to him to remit the lease amount in Sub Treasury. Then it was found that on account of the order of the High Court of Kerala in OP 10352/97 the lease cannot be granted. The opposite party told that the Cardamom Settlement Officer, Kumily is his friend and directed the 2nd complainant to produce the memo so that he can help the complainants. The memo is in the nature of a demand for remittance of amount for allotment of land. The above document which is in the possession of the opposite party is falsified without the consent of the petitioners. The land in possession of the petitioners is 2 acres owned by the 1st complainant. The opposite parties filed OS.155/10 on 21.7.10 before Sub Court, Kattappana for realization of loan amount. The complainant has claimed the loss on account denial of the benefits as Rs. 3,81,200/- which is the amount sought to be recovered by the opposite party and Rs.1 lakh as compensation, altogether Rs.5 lakhs.
4. The opposite party has filed version pointing out that the complainants availed a loan for cardamom cultivation for an extent of more than 7.75 acres of land. The complainants have availed the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 20.8.04 for agricultural operation of cardamom and pepper. The amount was to be repaid within 1 year. The complainants have not repaid any amount. In the loan application dated 20.8.04 they had declared that a total extent of 7.75acres of land in possession for agricultural operation of cardamom and pepper. 2 acres of land owned by the 1st complainant was equitably mortgaged. Another 5.75 acres of lease land in Survey No. 117/666 is in the possession of the 2nd complainant. The original cardamom settlement memo dated 1.2.2001 issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer; Kumily for having leased out 5.75acres to the 2nd complainant for cultivation of cardamom for a period of 20 years was submitted in order to avail the loan. During that time, the maximum credit limit provided for the agricultural loan was about of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. The complainants had declared that they are having 5.75 acres of lease land also in their possession. These was verified and confirmed by the opposite party bank in the inspection report. In total the complainants are holding 7.75 acres of land including patta and lease land. As per the guidelines issued by the RBI with respect of the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme for farmers declared by the Central Government in 2008 if a farmer is cultivating as owner and tenant or share cropper of more than 5 acres of land, he comes only under the category of other farmer as defined in Clause No.3.7 circular of the guidelines. As the complainants were cultivating of more than 5 acres of land their eligibility is limited to 25%. Proceedings have also been initiated against the complainants in the Sub Court.
5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4 and Exts. R1 to R8.
6. The Forum has rightly disbelieved the case of the complaints that somebody have forged the signatures of the complainants and misappropriated the loan amount in collusion with the Bank authorities as the complainants have not forwarded any complaint before the authorities in this regard. No police complaint has also been filed. Hence the above case was totally disbelieved. We find that with respect of the above findings of the Forum we find that there is no scope for interference.
7. The contention of the counsel for the appellants/complainants is that in Ext. R1 loan application, the columns were filed up by the Bank officials and also the entries in column 6 as 5.75 acres and 7.75acres. The total extent has been subsequently incorporated as the Manager failed to include the names of complainants in the list of beneficiaries of the schemes and forward the same to the Government. In order to cover up the lapse of the manager the Bank officials have fabricated the above entries in Ext. R1. It is pointed out that the hand writing as Ext. R3 inspection report and in Ext. R1 is the same hand writing. The same would evidence that it was not the complainants who filled up the loan application form. It is also contented that the memo would not indicate the lease was granted to the 2nd complainant with respect to 5.75 acres. The notings therein that the amount has been collected and lease will be granted and subjected to the final judgment of the High Court in OP No. 10352/97 would show that the lease was not granted.
8. We find that Ext. R5 is the copy of the tax receipt with respect of the property remitted to the 2nd complainant. There is no explanation with respect to Ext. R5. We find that in case the 2nd complainant is in a possession of 5.75 acres of property the same can be proved with same evidence which can be produced by the opposite parties. As per Ext. R8 vide Clause 3.7 therein a marginal farmer is a person cultivating as owner or tenant or share cropper of agricultural land up to 2.75 acres and small farmer up to 5 acres and only such persons would be entitled to total waiver. It would be appropriate for the Forum to decide the matter rather than delegating the function of the opposite parties as has been done.
9. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum will permit both sides to adduce further evidence and also see that documents are produced and witnesses who would be in possession of the relevant documents with respect to the possession of the property by the 2nd complainant is examined. If the 2nd opposite party was not in a possession of the extent property as claimed by the opposite parties the loan dues should be written off by the opposite parties. The parties will appear before the Forum on 30.12.11.
Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
DA
