DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.
Complaint case No. 87/2009 Date of disposal: 30/12/2009
Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : SRI ASIT KUMAR SAHA & OTHERS.
Defendant/O.P.S. : THE JACKPAL & SONS & OTHERS.
BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT : Mr. P. K. Sarkar.
MEMBER : Mr. S. Pal.
MEMBER : *********** For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. A. K. Dutta.
For the Defendant/O.P.S. : Mr. R. K. Sarkar.and Mr. S.Dutta.
Judgement/Order.
This case of complaint was filed by (1) Sri Asit Kumar Saha and (2) Sawrup Saha S/o-Late Sital Saha residing at Vill-Piyardanga, P.O.-Karasia, P.S.-Chandrakona, Dist- Paschim Medinipur against the Op. no.1. Jackpal & Sons of Proprietor Udayranjan Pal of Vill-Nannurchack, P.O.-Medinipur, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist: Paschim Medinipur and Op. no.2 the branch Manager, Contai Co-operative bank Ltd. at Egra Branch, P.O. & P.S.- Egra, Dist; Purba Medinipur for not including the complainant’s name in the list of eligible farmers for getting relief under Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt Relief scheme, 2008 causing huge monetary loss and mental agony to him.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainants availed agricultural term loan amounting to Rs.2,52,000/- from Op. no.2 for purchase of a tractor (Mark 855 of SWARAJ Company) on 02/03/2002. Due to natural calamity as well as serious illness of complainant no.2, they could not deposit the instalments regularly and became defaulter. Afterwards they deposited Rs.73,255/- in the aforesaid loan account. In the meantime, the Govt. of India declared Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme vide RPCD no. PLFSBC72/05.04.2002/2007-2008 dated 23/05/2008.Though the complainants were eligible to get relief under the scheme, but the Op. no.2, the financing bank, did not include the complainants’ names in the list of eligible farmers under the aforesaid Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 declared by the Govt. of India vide RPCDNo.PLFSBC72/05.04.2002/2007- 08 dated 23/05/2008 and thereby deprived them of the benefit available under the scheme. Even when it was brought to notice of the Op. no.2 by the complainants, the Op. no.2 bank did not take any step to include
Contd………….P/2
- ( 2 ) -
the complainants’ names in the list. This inaction on the part of the op. no.2 financing bank amounted to their deficiency in service and as such they must compensate the complainants appropriately. Hence the complainant filed this case praying for issuance of direction upon the Op. no.2; (i) to arrange for appropriate relief for the complainants under the aforesaid scheme; (ii), to allow him to pay the balance amount, if any, after crediting the appropriate relief in the loan account, in easy instalments.
The case has been contested by the Ops by filing their written objections separately.
The Op.no.1 in their written objection stated that they had nothing to do to help the complainants to get relief under the ADWDR scheme,2008; and that they were the unnecessary partly in the present case and as such their name should be dropped from the complaint case.
The Op. no.2 contended interalia that the instant case is not maintainable in this Forum; that the loan in question was for commercial purpose and not for agricultural purpose; that long after publication of the list of beneficiaries under the scheme, the complainants applied for relief under the scheme on 21/05/09, while they sent the list of eligible farmers on 28/07/08 to the R.B.I.; that they requested the complainants to come to the office of the bank on 25/05/2009 for a discussion over the dispute, but they did not turn up. and that they were not deficient in service as alleged by the complainants and as such the case should be dismissed with cost.
Upon the pleadings of both sides the following issues are framed for our consideration :
i) whether the case is maintainable in this Forum as per provisions of section 2 of C.P. Act,1986 as amended from time to time?
ii) whether the Op. no.2 is deficient in service as alleged by the complainants ?
iii) To what relief/relief(s) are the complainants entitled ?
Decisions with reasons:
We have very carefully perused all the papers/documents filed in this case by both parties. We have also heard and considered the submissions made by the Ld. Lawyers on behalf of both parties.
Issue No.(i)
There is no dispute that the Op. no.2-financing bank granted and disbursed medium term loan amounting to Rs.2,52,000/- on 02/03/02 to the complainant for purchasing of a tractor. There is also no dispute that the complainant repaid Rs.2,99,656/- towards principal amount and interest for liquidating the loan. Therefore the complainant is a consumer as per of provisions of section 2(i) d (ii) read with section 2(i)(g) and 2(1)(o) of C.P. Act, 1986 as amended from time to time. So the case is maintainable in the Forum.
Contd………….P/3
- ( 3 ) -
Issue Nos.(ii) & (iii)
There is no dispute that Govt. of India declared the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief scheme, 2008 notified by the R.B.I.vide. RPCD no. PLFSBC72/05.04.2002/2007-2008 dated 23/05/2008 and as per said relief scheme, the small and marginal framers (having less than 2.5/5 acres of land ) who availed medium term agricultural investment credit for acquiring capital assets viz. pump set, tractor etc. up to 31/03/07-2008 are eligible for 100% waiver of the balance outstanding up to 31/12/2007 and of the amount which had not been repaid till 29/02/08. In his complaint, the complainant asserted by affidavit that he got 10 bighas (i.e. less than 5 acres) of agricultural land. So the complainant being ‘small farmers’ as defined in the said scheme was entitled get to get 100% waiver of the balance outstanding up to 31/12/2007 and of the amount which had not been repaid till 29/02/08. in his loan account. Admittedly the Op. no.2-financing Bank did not include the names of the complainants in the list of the eligible farmer-borrowers for waiver of the agricultural debt under the said scheme.. The Op. no.2 financing bank contended that they granted the loan to the complainants for purchasing of the tractor for commercial purpose; and that the complainants did not apply for waive of the agricultural debt under the said waiver scheme of 2008 and as such they did not include their names in the list of eligible farmer-borrowers for waiver/relief available under the scheme. and that they are not deficient in service as alleged by the complainants.
But facts remain that –
a) Medium Term finance for purchase of a tractor granted to a farmer is an ‘agricultural investment credit’ as per norms formulated by the NABARD for acquiring capital assets including the tractor. The OP. no.2-bank failed to adduce any cogent evidence to show that the loan in question was granted for commercial purpose. They only mentioned that the loan was for commercial purpose because they charged interest as high as 15% p.a. for the said loan which was generally not charged in case of loans for agricultural purpose. The Op. no.2 financing bank was not justified for charging 15% interest on the loan for purchasing the tractor by a small farmer violating the norms formulated by the NABARD So the Op. no.2-financing bank should recast the loan account of the complainants charging interest as applicable in case of loan for purchasing a tractor by the small framers as per norms formulated by the NABARD;
b) the complainants-farmers/borrowers claimed to have 10 bighas of agricultural land. The Op.-financing bank failed to prove that the complainants were not cultivators/or small farmers. So complainants are eligible for waiver of the balance amount unpaid up to
Contd………….P/4
- ( 4 ) -
31/12/2007 and the amount which was not repaid up to 29/02/2008, as per provisions of
Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt relief scheme, 2008;
c) there was no mandatory provision that the eligible farmer-borrower was required to apply for waiver of agricultural debt as per provisions of Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt relief scheme, 2008.On the contrary, as per rule 7 of the scheme it was the duty of the Op-financing bank to prepare two lists of eligible farmers for waiver of debts separately and to bring out a notice to that effect on or before 30/06/2008. On 29/01/2009 the complainants came to know that their names were not included in the list of eligible farmers for waiver of debts under the said scheme and as such they requested the Op. no.2-financing bank (i) to take effective steps for waive of his debt under the scheme and (ii) to provide them with a statement of the loan account. The Op. no.2 failed produce any document to show that they had either taken any step for waiver of the outstanding loan of the complaints under the Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt relief scheme, 2008, or supplied a statement of the loan account to the complainants. This inaction on the part of the Op. no.2 bank amounted to their deficiency in service;
d) on scrutiny of the Loan Pass Book it appeared that the balance outstanding in the loan account of the complaints as on 29/02/2008 was Rs.1,07,188/- which was to have waived under the Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt relief scheme, 2008. So the Op. no.2 must compensate the complainants appropriately. Thus the issues are decided in favour of the complainants.
Hence,
Ordered,
that the Op. no.2 must take effective steps for waiver of the outstanding dues in the loan account of the complainants as on 29/02/2008 as applicable to small farmers under the Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt Relief scheme,2008 declared as notified by the R.B.I. vide .RPCD no.PLFS.BC.72/05-04-02/2007-08 dated 23/05/2008 and such steps must be completed within 7 days from the date of communication of this order and in the event of non-availability of fund from the appropriate authority for non-inclusion of the names of the complainant-farmers and for not submitting claim within the stipulated time/period (if there was any such mandate from the appropriate authority), the Op. no.2 bank shall liquidate the outstanding loan of the complainant-farmers out of their own source. In the mean time the Op. no.2 shall treat the complainant-borrowers as prospective eligible borrowers for fresh loans as per provisions of the Agricultural Debt waivement and Debt relief scheme, 2008.
Contd………….P/5
- ( 5 ) -
The Op. no.2 shall also pay the complainants Rs.2,000/- toward the cost of litigation.
Thus the case is disposed of on contest.
Let the copies of the judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Dic. & Corrected by me
I agree
Member Member President
District Forum
Paschim Medinipur.