LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Karnataka Bank 
Submit Complaint..
Sri. A.L. Dayasagar,
S/o Late A.K. Lingappa Gowda,
Aged 58 years, Coffee Planter,
Chipraguthi ‘B’ Estate,
Halekere Village, Gowdahalli Post,
MUDIGERE TALUK.
(By Sri. Gerald Dias, Adv.)
V/s
OPPONENT:
Karnataka Bank Limited,
CHIKMAGALUR ,
Represented by its Manager.
- ::: O R D E R ::: -
1. The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opponent for the deficiency of service in not providing the details of the benefit of Vidharba Package and Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Reliefs Scheme 2008 and for a direction to furnish the details of the sanctioned loan and adjusted towards interest and to reschedule the loan as per the said package along with a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and to pay Rs.15,00,000/- towards the loss caused to him as detailed in the complaint.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:-
The complainant is a customer to the opponent bank since 1991 and he along with his wife have raised following loans from the opponent bank:
(a) PSTL:1/94-95 Rs.8,16,000-00
(b) PSTL:44/94-95 Rs.8,46,000-00
(c) PSTL:21/98-99 Rs.2,27,000-00
(d) PSTL:38/99-00 Rs.6,18,000-00
(e) PSDPN:50/00-01 Rs.11,30,000-00
(f) PSDPN:49/2001-02 Rs.7,00,000-00
3. Such being the case, the Central Government of India has introduced a relief package called Vidharba Package. Under the said scheme the interest payable on the principal amount as on to 30.06.2006 was waived off and a direction was given to the opponent bank to reschedule the loan. Subsequently, Central Government has also introduced loan waiver package called Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008.
Even though the said schemes were introduced, the opponent bank has not given the benefits to the complainant and his wife, inspite of repeated requests and demands also the opponent bank has not provided the benefits to the complainant and not rescheduled the loan to the complainant and his wife. Instead of waiver off the interest and rescheduling the loan, the opponent bank has filed a case against the complainant before Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore claiming Rs.77,69,812/- in O.A. No.248/2008 and the same is pending. But at no point of time, the complainant is in due of Rs.77,69,812/- and the opponent instead of allowing in utilizing the benefit has given a slip dtd.21.08.2008 to pay the following amount on or before 30.09.2008:
(a) PSDPN:59/2000 Rs.36,535-00
(b) PSDPN:49/2001 Rs.31,646-00
(c) PSB:38/99 Rs.20,000-00
(d) PSR:44/94 Rs.2,21,663-00
(e) PSR:1/94 Rs.2,33,650-00
But this complainant wondered that how the said amount is to be paid and the opponent has not specifically stated the details in the said slip. Subsequently, the complainant got issued a legal notice dtd.22.09.2008 calling upon the opponent to give details of the amount payable under the Vidharba Package and Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Reliefs Scheme 2008. Inspite of receipt of the notice also, they have failed to furnish the details of the benefits. If the opponent had furnished the benefits of the Vidharba Package and rescheduled the loan as on to 30.06.2006, the complainant would have improved the estate and due to not providing the relief, he suffered Rs.15,00,000/- loss. Therefore, the opponent is at deficiency of service. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint for the above referred reliefs.
4. After the service of the notice, the opponent has appeared through their counsel and filed version wherein they have contended that the complainant and his wife were provided six loan facilities as stated in the complaint and the head office of the opponent has sent a circular dtd.27.05.2002 as per the scheme the entire amounts due under all types of coffee loans including the interest upto the date of restructure were consolidated into a single term loan on the terms and conditions detailed in circular.
The complainant and his wife opted to get all the loan facilities consolidated under one loan account PS SCTL.130/02-03 dtd.19.02.2003 and he has given 12 yearly installments to make payment of the amounts due to the opponent bank along with interest as and when due every year. The entire interest as on 19.02.2003 was capitalized and the amounts due under PS SCTL.130/02-03 was Rs.61,92,100/- payable by the complainant. The Vidharbha Package was introduced in the year of 2006 and as per the scheme, the interest upto 30.06.2006 was permitted to be waived. As such an amount of Rs.22,40,957-00 being the outstanding interest upto 30.06.2006 in the loan account of the complainant was waived.
The interest accrued from the date of PS SCTL.130/02-03 for the reason that the guidelines provided did not permit the opponent bank to waive the interest capitalized under Special Coffee Package. The complainant and his wife furnished the forms for rescheduling the repayment structure. Before the repayment schedule be restructured, the complainant came to the opponent bank and instructed not to restructure the repayments schedule under Vidharbha Scheme and took back the forms filled by giving a letter dtd.11.08.2007. Even though the opponent bank was ready to restructure the repayment schedule under Vidharbha Scheme, strictly adhering to the guidelines, the complainant did not opt for restructure of repayment schedule under Vidharbha Scheme.
5. Subsequently, during the year of 2008, the Central Government of India introduced Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, wherein the borrowers would get 25% of the eligible loan amount in the event of borrowers making payment of 75% of the eligible amount in three installments, the first installment payable on or before 30.09.2008 and the last installment payable on or before 30.06.2009.
Under this scheme all loan facilities are not provided to be eligible for waiver. As such the total eligible amount was Rs.21,73,976-00 and out of total eligible amount the complainant and his wife were entitled to get waiver of Rs.5,43,494-00 (25%) in the event of making payment of balance amount of Rs.16,30,482-00 (75%). The complainant received the intimation of waiver dtd.22.09.2008 and he cleared all the doubts by discussion. The complainant and his wife were well aware that they would be getting benefit of Rs.5,43,494-00 out of total eligible amount. The balance amount claimed in the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal was to be paid by the complainant and his wife. The same was also explained to the complainant.
6. Since the complainant and his wife did not make payment, they issued a legal notice dtd.16.09.2006 demanding for payment and intimated the complainant if failed to do so, they will be proceeded for recovery of the entire amount due to the bank for violation of agreement. Inspite of the receipt of the said notice, the complainant did not make any payment, but he has issued a reply. As such they have no alternative but to file a recovery case at D.R.T., Bangalore in O.A.248/2008 and the same has been contested by the complainant and his wife also. Therefore, the complainant has filed this false complaint in order to gain wrongfully. The complainant is well aware of the guidelines of the schemes, but in order to avoid the payment, the complainant has filed this false complaint and there is no liability on the complainant to pay Rs.77,69,812-00 to the opponent and there is no deficiency of service as because all the details of the restructure and benefits were explained to the complainant. Hence, the opponent prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence as PW.1 along with the documents and the same have been marked as Exs.P1 to P34.
8. One Sri. T. Nagendra Rao, Senior Branch Manager of opponent Bank has also filed his affidavit along with the documents and the same have been marked as Exs.R1 to R18.
9. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties’ counsels.
10. Now, the points that arise for consideration of this Forum are as follows:-
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opponent?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as sought?
iii) What Order?
11. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
i) Point No.1: In the Negative
ii) Point No.2: In the Negative
iii) Point No.3: See, as per order below
- ::: R E A S O N S ::: -
12. Point Nos.1 & 2: The case of the complainant is that he along with his wife have raised as much as six loans from the opponent, which were payable by him. In the year 2006 the Central Government of India has introduced Vidharbha Package in order to help the Coffee Growers and provided waiver of interest accrued on the loans and also introduced Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme in the year 2008, where the Central Government has provided to waive of the loans. But the opponent bank has not extended the benefits provided Central Government to the loans raised by the complainant and his wife and the opponent has failed to furnish the details of benefits, which are entitled to the complainant. As such they are at deficiency of service and prays for the above referred reliefs.
13. On contrary, the opponent has contended in his version that in the year 2003 i.e., on 19.02.2003 all the loans raised by the complainant and his wife were consolidated under one loan account and 12 years installments were provided and the entire interest as on to 19.02.2003 was capitalized under the said amount and he was due of Rs.61,92,100/- and after the introduction of the Vidharbha Package they have provided interest waiver to the tune of Rs.22,04,957/- as on to 30.06.2006 on the loan account PS SCTL.130/02-03 as per the guidelines and further they contended that after the introduction of Agricultural Waiver and Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme, the complainant is eligible to get 25% of the eligible loan amount, in the event if he paid 75% of the eligible loan amount under three installments. But the complainant has not opted to pay the said amount. As such they have filed recovery case against the complainant and also the details were explained to the complainant and submitted that there is no deficiency of service.
14. On perusal of the documents produced by both the parties, we noticed that a number of transactions took place between the complainant and the opponent bank. As stated by the opponent, the entire six loans were consolidated into one loan account i.e., PS SCTL.130/02-03 and the same was admitted by the complainant and he has given a letter to the complainant in this respect stating that to consolidate the outstanding balance into one account and the said letter is marked as Ex.R1 and the complainant admits his signature. Therefore, the complainant has given a consent to consolidate the entire loans into one account i.e., PS SCTL.130/02-03 in the year 2003. Such being the case, the complainant cannot claim waiver of interest under the Vidharbha Package Scheme to the above said loans individually.
Once the loans were consolidated into one account, the scheme will be applicable to the said one account, that means to say under the Vidharbha Package the interest accrued on the loan amount i.e., PS SCTL.130/02-03 will be waived off as on to 30.06.2006 the same was provided by the opponent bank also and they waived of accrued interest amount of Rs.22,40,957/-. Such being the case, the complainant cannot claim waiver of interest to the earlier loans raised in the opponent bank.
15. Further the opponent has categorically stated that the complainant has not opted the benefit and he has taken back the filled forms. The complainant also admits the same in his cross examination. Such being the case, he cannot claim for the benefits of Vidharbha Package to all six loans raised.
16. Further, it is admitted by the complainant that he has not opted for the payment of 25% of the outstanding amount and in his cross examination he states that he has given a representation to the Government through their association to waive off the entire loan amount. Such being the case, we found no deficiency of service as because admittedly they have given a letter dtd.22.09.2008 in order to provide the benefit under Agricultural Waiver and Agricultural Debt Claim, which was marked as Ex.R3.
But the complainant himself has not opted to receive the benefits. Such being the case, we found no deficiency on the part of opponent and the complainant knowing fully well the benefits of both the schemes has filed this false complaint and inspite of receipt of the details of the benefits of Vidharbha Package and Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 has filed this complaint for a direction to furnish the details and he is also seeking the benefits of the said schemes. But the opponent has categorically stated that they are providing benefit as per the guidelines of the scheme. Therefore, there is no valid allegation made against the opponent to prove the deficiency of service. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Under these circumstances, we answer the point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative.
17. Point No.3: In view of our findings on above points the complaint filed by the complainant has to be dismissed. In the result we pass the following order.
- :::O R D E R::: -
1. The complaint filed by the complainant against the opponent is hereby dismissed.
2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.
