BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.120/2008 Order dated this the 9th day of January 2009 COMPLAINANT/S 1. Madegowda M. S/o Hotte Madegowdana Madaiah, 2. M.Devaraju S/o Madaiah, 3. M.Ramu S/o Madaiah, 4. M.Basavaraju S/o Madaiah, 5. M.Mahesha S/o Madaiah, All are R/o H.Malligere Village, Keregodu Hobli, Mandya Taluk. (By Sri.P.Narendra Kumar., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Manager, Vijaya Bank, Mandya Branch. (By Sri.Thimme Gowda., Advocate) Date of complaint 17.11.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 22.11.2008 Date of order 09.01.2009 Total Period 1 Month 17 Days Result The complaint is disposed off directing the office to pay the amount deposited to the complainants. There is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for directing to Opposite party to repay Rs.2,28,690/- with interest and costs. 2. The case of the complainants is that, they had availed tractor loan to the tune of Rs.2,95,236/- from Opposite party Bank. After sanction of the said loan, the budget 2008-09 announced the Debt Relief Scheme for farmers. The complainants come under the farmers eligible under the debt relief scheme. The Opposite party Bank is bound to follow the regulations and Circular issued by the Government. Complainants 1 to 5 pooling their lands they had obtained the loan. Though the complainants come under the benefit of the scheme, the Opposite party has not extended benefit, but has collected Rs.2,28,690/- on 16.10.2008 which was due. Thus they have committed deficiency in service. The complainants approached the Opposite party many times and ultimately legal notice dated 23.10.2008 was issued, but Opposite party has not replied. Therefore, the Opposite party is bound to refund the amount deposited with interest. 3. The Opposite party has appeared before the Forum and filed a memo that they are going to settle the matter and they are awaiting signal from the Head Office and inspite of this information given the complainants have filed the complaint. Opposite party later filed a D.D. for Rs.2,28,690/- and sought for closure of the complaint. 4. The complainant has filed affidavit. We have heard both sides. 5. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to interest and cost of the proceedings? 6. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 7. The contention of the counsel for the complainant is that Opposite party has committed negligence in not giving benefit of the debt waiver scheme, though the complainants are entitled in spite of representations given by the complainant and the legal notice. But the contention of the Opposite party is that the complainants had shown the land to the extent of 7 acres 7 guntas and they do not come under the small farmers and they have borrowed investment loan for purchase of the tractor and therefore, relief of 25% was given and only in case of small or margin farmer entire eligible amount shall be waived. Since, the complainants joining together pooling their land, obtained the tractor loan showing more than 7 acres, the Opposite party has considered them as other farmer as per the definition and extended the benefit of 25%. After legal notice they have sought for the opinion of the Head office which is manifest from the letter of the head office and the head office has directed to consider the individual holding of the each complainant and extend the benefit after filing the complaint. Thereafter, the Opposite party has extended benefits and has submitted the D.D. for the amount deposited by the complainants towards the loan due. Therefore, since the Opposite party has complied with grievance of the complainants as per the definition under the scheme after obtaining opinion from the head office, on account of confusion it cannot be said that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and therefore, the complainants are not entitled to the interest on the said amount from the date of deposit or towards the cost. In fact, they have not at all contested the complaint. Therefore, in the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is disposed off directing the office to pay the amount deposited to the complainants. There is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 9th day of January 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
