BANK OF INDIA & ORS vs SATPAL & ANR ; SUMER SINGH

[1] This revision is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, "the State Commission") dated 21.11.2012 whereby the State Commission while concurring with the finding of the District Forum, Faridabad dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner Bank.

[2] Undisputed facts of the present case are that the respondents/complainants had availed a loan of Rs.3 Lakhs in their joint names from the petitioner Bank for purchase of a tractor by mortgaging their land measuring 4 acre 6 kanal. The Government of India came out with a Special Debt Relief Scheme whereby certain categories of farmers were entitled to waiver of their balance loan. It is the case of the complainants that as per the terms and conditions the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 they were entitled to 100% loan waiver whereas the petitioner Bank had waived only 25% of outstanding loan. Claiming this to be deficiency in service a consumer dispute was raised in District Forum, Faridabad.

[3] The petitioner/opposite party in its written statement took the plea that 25% waiver of loan was rightly given in terms of the policy of the Government and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

[4] The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/opposite party to waive the entire outstanding loan against the complainants.

[5] Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum the petitioner Bank approached the State Commission in appeal. The appeal, however, was dismissed.

[6] We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The controversy in this matter revolves around the interpretation of Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Relevant provisions of the scheme are reproduced as under: - "3.1 ''Direct Agricultural Loan'' means short term production loans and investment loans provided directly to farmers for agricultural purpose. This would also include such loans provided directly to groups of individual farmers (for example self help groups and joint liability groups), provided banks maintain disaggregated data of the loan extended to each farmer belonging to that group.

3.3 ''Investment loan means

(a) investment credit for direct agricultural activities extended for meeting outlays relating to the replacement and maintenance of wasting assets and for capital investment designed to increase the output from the land, e.g. deepening of wells, sinking of new wells, installation of pump sets, purchase of tractor/pair of bullocks, land development and term loan for traditional and non-traditional plantations and horticulture; and

(b) investment credit for allied activities extended for acquiring assets in respect of activities allied to agriculture e.g. diary, poultry farming, goatery, sheep rearing, piggery, fisheries, bee-keeping green houses and biogas.

3.6 ''Small Farmer'' means a farmer cultivating (as owner of tenant or share cropper) agricultural land up to 1 hectare (2.5 acres).

3.7 ''Other Farmer'' means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land or more than 2 hectares (more than 5 acres)

Explanation:

The classification of eligible farmers as per the above landholding criteria under the Scheme would be based on the total extent of land owned by the farmer either singly or as joint holder (in the case of an owner-farmer) or the total extent of land cultivated by the farmer (as tenant or share cropper), at the time of sanction of the loan, irrespective of any subsequent changes in ownership or possession.

In the case of a farmer who has obtained investment credit for allied activities where the principal loan amount does not exceed Rs.50,000/-, he would be classified as "small and marginal farmer" and where the principal amount exceeds Rs.50,000/- he would be classified as ''other farmer'' irrespective in both cases of the size of the land holding, if any.

6.1 In the case of ''other farmers'' there will be a onetime settlement (OTS) Scheme under which the farmer will be given a rebate of 25 per cent of ''eligible amount'' subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of 75 per cent of the ''eligible amount."

[7] Clause 3.6 of the above-noted relief scheme defines ''small farmers'' as a person cultivating the agricultural land upto the maximum limit of 5 acres. Explanation 2 to clause 3.7 which defines ''other farmers'' provides that in case of borrowing by more than one farmer by pooling their land holdings the size of the largest landholding in the pool shall be the basis for purpose of classification of those farmers who had pooled their land as ''marginal farmer'' or ''small farmer'' or ''other farmer''. Undisputedly in the instant case the respondents had pooled in their land measuring 4 acres and 6 kanal each. The maximum land holding of individual farmer in this case being less than 5 acres the respondents fall within the category of ''small farmers''.

[8] Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to explanation 3 to the definition in the debt waiver scheme and contended that admittedly the respondents in this case have taken loan of Rs.3 Lakhs which does exceed Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, they would be classified as ''other farmers'' irrespective of their landholding and in view of clause 6.1 of the scheme of the scheme they were entitled only to rebate of 25% of eligible amount which was given to them as per one time settlement scheme. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The above contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived as it is based on the misreading of the scheme. On conjoint reading of clause 3.3 (b) and explanation 3 to the definitions in the waiver scheme, it is clear that the explanation relates to the farmers who had taken loan for acquiring assets in respect of activities allied to the agriculture such as dairy, poultry farm etc. In the instant case admittedly the respondents had taken investment credit for direct agriculture activities i.e. purchasing a tractor with the intention to increase the agriculture output from the land. Thus, the respondents were entitled to 100% waiver of the loan provided the above noted policy is application to them.

[9] On perusal of the debt waiver policy we find that it is restricted to certain districts mentioned in the annexure to the policy. Land of the respondents is located in district Faridabad, Haryana, which is not included in the annexure detailing the districts to which above-said policy is applicable. From this, it is clear that debt waiver policy was not applicable to the respondents. Thus, the denial of waiver of 100% loan to the respondents by the petitioner cannot be termed as deficiency in service.

[10] Otherwise also, admittedly the debt relief was in the form of one time settlement. The respondents settled their loan after obtaining rebate of 25% of the eligible amount and paid the balance 75%. Thus, the respondents after having settled the matter with the bank could not have re-agitate the matter by raising a consumer dispute. On this count also the complaint ought to have been dismissed.

[11] In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that foras below have committed a grave error in misinterpreting the scheme resulting in favourable order to the complainants. Revision petition is, therefore, allowed, impugned orders of the foras below are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, the rebate of 25% given shall not be recovered from the complainants.

[12] Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

[13] The amount deposited by the petitioner bank as a pre-condition to stay of the impugned order be released to it after the expiry of period of filing of the SLP.