KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO. 263/11

JUDGMENT DATED : 16.11.11

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR             :  MEMBER

C.S. Sivakumar, S/o K. Saseendran

Sreedevi Nivas, Kumbidi P.O.,

Palakkad Dist. Pin: 679 553.                             :  APPELLANT

Vs

The Senior Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Pattambi Branch,

Pin : 679 303.                                                     :  RESPONDENT

(By Adv. P. Balakrishnan)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR         :  MEMBER

It is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint in CC No. 107/09 by the CDRF Palakkad, that the present appeal is filed by the complainant.

2.      The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had availed an agricultural loan from the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- by pledging gold ornaments on 09/11/2005 and that the opposite party converted the same in to non-agricultural loan whereby the interest rate was enhanced to 8.75% and also that he was denied  the benefit of waiver of the loan under the Agricultural  Debt  Waiver Scheme. It was his case that he made representations to all the authorities concerned including the Banking ombudsman and as the ombudsman had ordered that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the complaint was filed before the Forum praying for directions to the opposite party to classify the loan as agricultural loan itself and also give benefit of the Debt Waiver Scheme along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant.

2.      Resisting the complaint the opposite party filed version wherein it was contended that the loan availed by the complainant was not an agricultural loan and it was a general loan by pledging gold ornaments and that the interest rate was 9.75% and also that the complainant was not declared eligible for the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme though his loan was also included for waiver as per the scheme. It was further submitted that even the ombudsman did not entertain the complaint of the complainant and that the complainant had not produced any documents to show that he owned agricultural land at the relevant point of time and also that the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,65,264/- as on 29.11.08. Contending that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

3.      The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 on his side. The opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      Heard both sides.

5.      The appellant who is the complainant and who has appeared in person submitted before us that the order of the Forum below dismissing the complaint is per-se illegal and unsustainable. It is his very case that he applied for agricultural loan only and that the application marked as Ext. A5 would clearly show that there was a manipulation by the bank officials and also that the purpose column was not filled by the opposite party. It is also his case that in column 1 of the application the opposite party had struck out ‘agricultural’ to suit their convenience and also that the occupation of the complainant was shown as “non-agriculture-advocate. It is his further case that he had given the profession as advocate only and non-agriculture was an addition made by the opposite party to deny the benefit of agricultural loan and subsequent waiver thereof. He has also submitted that there is a chance of replacement of the first page of the application as it can be see that there is no signature in the first page of the application. He also argued for the position that the token given to him was 140/05 whereas the number in the application is 140/554 which would indicate that so many manipulations were done by the opposite party to reject the genuine claim of the complainant. He has submitted before us that the Forum below had gone wrong while passing the order and he prayed for allowing the appeal thereby directing the opposite party to include the complainant’s loan in the agricultural category itself.

6.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposed the contentions of the appellant/complainant. The learned counsel submitted before us that the complainant had filled up the application and the rate of interest at 8.75% was very well known to the complainant at the time of taking the loan after pledging the gold ornaments. It is also his case that Ext. A5/B2 is very clear that the interest was 8.75% per annum and that the opposite party had rightly directed the complainant to clear the loan by repaying the principal amount with 8.75% interest. The learned counsel has advanced the further contention that the token number given to the complainant and the number shown in the application are one the same and argued that the complainant was not eligible for the benefit of agricultural loan since he had not produced any document to show that he owned property for agricultural purpose and hence the order of the Forum below is only to be upheld by dismissing the appeal.

7.      On hearing both sides and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the loan for
Rs. 1,25,000/- was given to the complainant on 9.11.05. The principal issue in question is whether the loan was given on agricultural basis or otherwise. The complainant/appellant would say that he had taken the loan for agricultural purpose and that he was liable to pay interest only at the rate of agricultural loan whereas the opposite party would argue that the loan was given as a general loan for which the interest rate was 8.75% per annum. On perusal of Ext.A5/B1 it is seem that the column for purpose is not filled. It is also noted that in the occupation column, it is written as non-agriculture-advocate. We find that such an occupation is not heard of so far. It is presumed that the complainant has written as agriculture-advocate in the occupation column and “non seems to be an interpellation” We also find that the first page of the application is not signed by the complainant/loanee. Though the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party would argue that in the promissory note also the rate of interest is shown, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the respondent/opposite party that the complainant was liable to pay interest at the rate of 8.75% per annum. It is a general practice that the banks obtain signed papers from the parties and they are in the custody of the Bank. In the instant case it is seen that the purpose column is not filled and in the occupation column we see the addition ‘non’. It is to be found that if the complainant had not taken the loan for agricultural purpose, he would not have approached the opposite party to include him in the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme. It is also found that the opposite party had included the complainant in the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme in the first instance. Taking all the above facts and circumstances, we find that the complainant is eligible for the benefit of agriculture loan and he is liable to pay interest only at the rate applicable to agricultural loan during the relevant time. It is submitted by the appellant/complainant that he had remitted the amount to the bank at the rate directed by the opposite party. We find that the complainant is liable to pay interest only at the rate applicable for the agricultural loan and the amount realized from the complainant over and above the said rate is to be refunded to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of remittance of the loan till the date of refund to the complainant.

In the result, the order dated 30.11.10 in CC No. 107/09 of CDRF Palakkad is set aside. The appeal is allowed in part thereby the opposite party is directed to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant towards the loan over and above the rate for agricultural loan with 9% interest from the date of clearing the loan by the complainant till the date of refund. The appellant/complainant is also entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards cost for the proceedings through out to be paid by the opposite party.

The office is directed to return the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.

S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR:  MEMBER

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

DA