Suseela Vs. the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Palakkad Branch and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1108862
CourtKerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided OnOct-28-2011
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. A/11/228 (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/02/2011 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/10/37 of District Palakkad)
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE SHRI. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR MEMBER
AppellantSuseela
RespondentThe Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Palakkad Branch and Others
Excerpt:
justice shri. k.r. udayabhanu: president appellant is the complainant in cc.37/10 in the file of cdrf, palakkad. the complaint stands dismissed. 2. it is the case of the complainant that herself and her husband availed an agricultural loan on 15.11.2005 as crop loan no.11/301 and that on 20.6.07 she renewed the loan by payment of interest amount. according to the complainant no repayment to the principal amount was made except interest payment on 20.6.07. the complainant has claimed the benefits of the agricultural debt relief scheme 2008. it is alleged that the opposite parties have not granted the reliefs as provided in the above scheme. the complainant claimed waiver of the outstanding amount of rs.95,959/- which according to the complainant was over due as on 31.2.2007 (sic 31.12.2007). 3. the opposite parties have filed version admitting that a sum of rs.1.lakh was provided as loan on 15.11.2005 under the kissan credit card scheme and opposite parties mortgaged 3.10.acres of land. as per agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme 2008. the eligibility criteria are:- 1. loan disbursed between 31.3.1997 and 31.3.2007. 2. over due as on 31.12.2007 and 3. remaining unpaid until february 29, 2008. according to the opposite parties the loan amount was not over due on 31.12.2007. it is also mentioned the contention that the renewal of the loan will not tantamount to a fresh loan is incorrect. 4. evidence adduced consisted of proof affidavits filed by the respective sides and exts.a1 to a6 and b1 to b3. 5. the forum has held that as per ext.a4, the complainant and her husband had renewed loan on 22.6.2007 and also deposited rs.1000/- on 7.2.2008; and hence the loan is not over due as on 31.12.2007 and that the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs under the scheme. 6. it is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that even for loans that are renewed the scheme is applicable. we find that even if the above contention is accepted the other condition in the scheme (ext.b2) is that the loan should be over due as on december 31, 2007. it is not disputed that the loan period is one year. it is specified in the complaint itself that the loan was renewed on 20.6.2007. if so, the complainant is having 12 months period to repay the amount from 26.6.2007. hence condition (b) of cl.2(1) of ext.b2 scheme of the government of india that the loan should be over due on december 31, 2007 stands not complied. on a reading of the above clause that clause 2, sub clause 1 of agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme 2008, implementation circular 1/08 we find that the complainant has not satisfied the above clause as he has time up to the expiry of 12 months from 20.6.2007 ie up to 19.6.2008 to repay the loan amount. hence we find that there is no illegality in the order of the forum . in the result, the order of the forum is sustained and the appeal is dismissed. the office will forward the lcr to the forum along with a copy of this order.
Judgment:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT

Appellant is the complainant in CC.37/10 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint stands dismissed.

2. It is the case of the complainant that herself and her husband availed an agricultural loan on 15.11.2005 as crop loan No.11/301 and that on 20.6.07 she renewed the loan by payment of interest amount. According to the complainant no repayment to the principal amount was made except interest payment on 20.6.07. The complainant has claimed the benefits of the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme 2008. It is alleged that the opposite parties have not granted the reliefs as provided in the above scheme. The complainant claimed waiver of the outstanding amount of Rs.95,959/- which according to the complainant was over due as on 31.2.2007 (sic 31.12.2007).

3. The opposite parties have filed version admitting that a sum of Rs.1.lakh was provided as loan on 15.11.2005 under the Kissan Credit Card Scheme and opposite parties mortgaged 3.10.acres of land. As per Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. The eligibility criteria are:-

1. Loan disbursed between 31.3.1997 and 31.3.2007.

2. Over due as on 31.12.2007 and

3. Remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008.

According to the opposite parties the loan amount was not over due on 31.12.2007. It is also mentioned the contention that the renewal of the loan will not tantamount to a fresh loan is incorrect.

4. Evidence adduced consisted of proof affidavits filed by the respective sides and Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B3.

5. The Forum has held that as per Ext.A4, the complainant and her husband had renewed loan on 22.6.2007 and also deposited Rs.1000/- on 7.2.2008; and hence the loan is not over due as on 31.12.2007 and that the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs under the scheme.

6. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that even for loans that are renewed the scheme is applicable. We find that even if the above contention is accepted the other condition in the scheme (Ext.B2) is that the loan should be over due as on December 31, 2007. It is not disputed that the loan period is one year. It is specified in the complaint itself that the loan was renewed on 20.6.2007. If so, the complainant is having 12 months period to repay the amount from 26.6.2007. Hence condition (b) of Cl.2(1) of Ext.B2 scheme of the Government of India that the loan should be over due on December 31, 2007 stands not complied. On a reading of the above clause that clause 2, sub clause 1 of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, implementation circular 1/08 we find that the complainant has not satisfied the above clause as he has time up to the expiry of 12 months from 20.6.2007 ie up to 19.6.2008 to repay the loan amount. Hence we find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum .

In the result, the order of the Forum is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.

The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with a copy of this order.