BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.12/2009 Order dated this the 24th day of April 2009 COMPLAINANT/S 1. Sri.Siddaiah S/o Late Kothi Boraiah, 2. Sri.Boraiah S/o Kothi Boraiah, 3. Sri.Channaiah S/o Kothi Boraiah, 4. Smt.Dodda Boramma W/o Chotha, 5. Sri.Duma S/o Siddaiah, All are R/o Hulikere Koppalu Village, Dudde Hobli, Mandya Taluk. (By Sri.P.Narendra Kumar., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Manager, Canara Bank, Sindhagatta Branch, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.A.Sunil Kumar., Advocate) Date of complaint 29.01.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 09.02.2009 Date of order 24.04.2009 Total Period 2 Months 15 Days Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Opposite party for a direction to waive off the entire loan of the complainants with compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The case of the complainants is that the complainants have availed the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the Opposite party Bank for purchasing tractor, trailer and other implements for agricultural purpose under loan account No.ALFM No.5353. According to the Union Government of India’s Farmers Debt Relief Scheme, the complainants are entitled to the entire loan waive off, but the Opposite party without considering the said aspect has only given waive off to only Rs.2,10,619/- and Rs.9,344/-. When the complainants questioned, the Opposite party given evasive answer. The complainants are entitled to 100% loan waive off and Opposite party has not extended that benefit. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint. 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting that the loan borrowed by the complainant and giving of loan waiver of Rs.2,10,619/- and Rs.9,344/-. It is denied that the complainants are entitled waiver of the entire loan and Opposite party Bank had given an evasive answer, when questioned by the complainants. The complainants are small farmers and the loan obtained by them is Investment Loan. As per the guidelines of Government of India only the installment of the loan over due on the December 31st 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008 will be eligible for the debt relief and not the loan amount as claimed by the complainants. Accordingly, waivement of loan as admissible is given. Therefore, the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. 4. During trial, the 1st Complainant is examined and has produced Ex.C.1 & C.2 documents. The Opposite party is examined and two documents Ex.R.1 & R.2 are produced and also copy of the sanctioned letter. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainants are entitled to 100% waiver of the loan? 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not extending the benefit of 100% waiver of the loan? 3. What order? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are that the complainants are small farmers and they have availed loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the Opposite party Bank for purchasing the tractor and trailer which is termed as investment loan, as per the guidelines of the Government of India in respect of the waiver of agricultural loan. 9. The grievance of the complainant is that the complainants are entitled to waiver of the entire loan due, but the Opposite party has given waiver of loan to the extent of Rs.2,10,619/- + Rs.9,344/- only and hence, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not extending that relief, though the complainants are entitled to 100% waiver of the loan as per the scheme. But the Opposite party has denied the same. The complainant himself has produced Ex.C.2 the guidelines of Agricultural Loan Waivement Scheme 2008. The perusal of this guidelines of the scheme shows, the tractor loan is a investment loan and as per Clause 4(b), the scheme applies to the over due installments along with the interest accrued which is over due as on 31.12.2007 and remaining unpaid until 29.02.2008. As per Ex.R.2, the over due installments is Rs.,133,400/-, the interest till 29.02.2008 is 1,58,946/- and the insurance amount is Rs.13,273/- total amount due is Rs.3,05,619/- and the amount paid by complainant is only Rs.95,000/- and the eligible amount is Rs.2,10,619/-. The complainant has also produced the loan account extract marked as Ex.C.1. As per the sanctioned order, the complainants are given 8 annual installments of Rs.66,700/- and one installment of Rs.66,400/- with interest payable as and when due, but the complainants have paid only Rs.95,000/- from the date of loan till 24.09.2007 and thereafter waiver of loan of Rs.2,10,619/- and Rs.9,334/- was given on 10/12.07.2008. So, the Opposite party has correctly calculated the over due installments as on 31.12.2007 and extended the loan waiver scheme to the complainants and there is no basis that the complainants are entitled to 100% waiver of the loan and the complainants have been given wrong information about the scheme of the waiver of the loan. Therefore, the Opposite party has extended the benefit of loan waiver scheme to the complainants loan account as admissible and Opposite party has not at all committed any deficiency in service at all. Even though, the Opposite party has sough for exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/- for dragging to the Opposite party to the Forum, but they are uneducated small farmers and they were misguided by somebody. Therefore, it is not a case to impose exemplary costs. 10. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed.