IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of July, 2015
Filed on 07.09.2013
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.271/2013
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Sabu Matahew The Secretary
S/o Mathew Kuttanadu Card Bank Ltd.
Member No. 17494-A Class No.A-1153, Moncombu
Perumthuruthil (By Adv. Jayan C. Das)
From Puthen Arackal
Chakkachampakka
Kainady P.O., Kuttanadu Taluk
(By Adv. Raveendranadhan Nair)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The facts of the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant who is a member of the opposite party has availed four loans from the opposite party including two agricultural loan, one housing loan and one business loan. Now the complainant has got a notice from the opposite party stating that he has to pay the entire loan amount of Rs.3,22,046/- within 7 days of the receipt of the notice. According to the complainant he is not liable to remit the amount as per the notice of the opposite party, because all agricultural loans up to October, 2013 are included in the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission (KSFDRC). The complainant further alleged that regarding the housing loan KSFDRC has passed an order on 24.8.2011 and other loans are still under consideration of KSFDRC. The complainant who is a distressed farmer is entitled to get the benefit under KSFDRC and hence filed this complaint seeking a direction against the opposite party to pass an order that the loans taken by the complainant are coming under the provision of the KSFDRC and to stay all further action as per the notice dated 28.8.2013 of the opposite party.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant is a member of the opposite party bank and availed 2 agricultural loans, one housing loan and one business loan from the opposite party. Since the loan amount was due, the opposite party had sent a notice to the complainant. The opposite party has submitted all the details regarding the loan taken by the complainant before KSFDRC. Thereafter the KSFDRC has passed an order on 24.8.2013 and as per the said order the housing loan (RHEX 737) the amount due was given as 30,000/- and the complainant has to pay Rs.15,000/- and the remaining Rs.15,000/- will be paid by the Government, that amount was also not paid by the complainant. Since the complainant has not paid any amount as per the order of KSFDRC, the opposite party has sent a notice to the complainant. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prays that the complaint is to be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1to B3.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant and contentions of the opposite party, the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?
5. Points 1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that he availed 4 different loans from the opposite party on various dates. The complainant who is a distressed farmer has submitted an application before the KSFDRC to get the benefits and as per the said application, the KSFDRC passed an order regarding the house loan and other loans are still under consideration of KSFDRC. While so the opposite party has sent a notice to the complainant demanding repayment of the loan amount. According to the complainant he was not liable to pay the loan amount as per the notice of the opposite party because his applications are still under consideration of the KSFDRC. Hence filed this complaint, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
6. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. Ext.A1 is the notice dated 28.8.2013 issued by the opposite party to the complainant, Ext.A2 is the order of KSFDRC dated 24.8.2011, Ext.A3 is the paper cutting of Malayala Manorama daily dated 21.1.2012, Ext.A4 is the notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant, Ext.A5 is the letter dated 29.5.2014 issued by the Principal Agricultural Officer to the complainant, Ext.A6 is the copy of paper publication, Ext.A7 is the copy of application filed by the complainant before KSFDRC and Ext.A8 series are the postal receipt and acknowledgement card. From Ext.A1 notice it can be seen that the complainant has defaulted the repayment of the loan amount and the opposite party demanded the repayment of the loan amount. From Ext.A2 it can be seen that in one of his loan for an amount of Rs.75,000/- taken in the year 2000, the due amount is fixed as Rs.30,000/- and out of the said amount the Government shall take over the liability of Rs.15,000/- and the complainant have to pay the balance amount within 6 months. In Ext.A3 paper publication it can be seen that an amendment bill has passed to include all agricultural loan up to 30.10.2011 within the purview of KSFDRC. Ext.A5 issued by the Principal Agricultural Officer, Alappuzha shows that agricultural debt up to 31.10.2011 coming under the purview of the KSFDRC Act and the complainant is at liberty to file fresh application again and as per the said letter (Ext.A5) the complainant filed fresh application (Ext.A7) on 12.6.2014 and Ext.A8series show that the said application received by the KSFDRC. The high lighting point contended by the opposite party that when the complainant filed application before KSFDRC, the opposite party has submitted all the details regarding the entire loan and the KSFDRC consider all the loans and passed a final order on 24.8.2011 and as per the said order regarding the housing loan, the due amount was fixed as Rs.30,000/- and out of that amount the complainant has to pay Rs.15,000/- within six months. But till now the complainant has not paid any amount and therefore the opposite party issued a notice to the complainant. From Ext.A5 it can be seen that the agricultural debt up to 31.10.2011 coming under the purview of KSFDRC and complainant can file fresh application to get the benefits and as per the said letter complainant filed fresh application on 12.6.2014 and the same was accepted by the KSFDRC. So it is clear that loan taken by the complainant from the opposite party is still under the consideration of the KSFDRC. So the complaint is allowed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is restrained from all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 28.08.2013 issued to the complainant till the final order from the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission in the application of the complainant dated 12.06.2014.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sabu Mathew (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Notice dated 28.8.2013 issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ext.A2 - Order of KSFDRC dated 24.8.2011
Ext.A3 - Paper cutting of Malayala Manorama daily dated 21.1.2012
Ext.A4 - Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ext.A5 - Letter dated 29.5.2014 issued by the Principal Agricultural Officer to the complainant]
Ext.A6 - Copy of paper publication
Ext.A7 - Copy of application filed by the complainant before KSFDRC
Ext.A8 series - Postal receipt and acknowledgement card
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Supriya K.S. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the details of loans from the bank
Ext.B2 - Copy of the final order dated 24.8.2011 of KSFDRC
Ext.B3 - Order of Joint Registrar dated 17.7.2013
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
