CANARA BANK vs K S SEETHARAMA

IN this revision petition challenge is to the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka in Appeal No. 1657/2006 dated 26. 7. 2006 dismissing the appeal of the revision petitioner and confirming the order of the District Forum directing O. P. Nos. 1 and 2 i. e. , Manager, Canara Bank and Chairman, Canara Bank to refund the sum of Rs. 86,547 to the complainant and forward the papers to O. P. No. 3 Deputy Director (Accounts), Coffee Board, Bangalore to process the same to secure payment of 1/3rd interest from the Central Government. Facts of the case in brief :

THE complainant who is the owner of the coffee estate has secured a loan from Canara Bank Suntikoppa Branch under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme (KCCS ). As on 28. 3. 2002 he was due to the bank Rs. 2,32,856. The complainant had also borrowed Plantation Development Loan (PDL) from the bank and balance amount due as on 27. 3. 2002 was Rs. 4,57,957. As per pass sheet furnished by the bank the total amount due with interest as on 28. 10. 2002 was Rs. 1,79,698 in KCCS 32/1999 and Rs. 4,96,113 in PDL account No. 3/1999. As per the Special Coffee Term Loan Scheme in pursuance of the Government notification the bank debited Rs. 6,75,811 to the loan account of the complainant with an intention to avail the benefit of the scheme announced by the Government notification. The complainant paid Rs. 2,65,642 towards interest which accrued for the period from 1. 4. 2000 to 31. 3. 2005, as the Government of India had announced a package of relief measures to improve coffee sector which was published by the Press Information Bureau. This was also published in news bulletin by the Coffee Board and also in its website. Further, this was published in the Kannada newspaper Prajavani dated 25. 5. 2005 according to which the parties who pay interest on or before June 2005 are entitled to rebate of 2/3 portion of the interest. The extract of the newspaper report which is translated in English reads as follows : "if a coffee grower had availed SCTL benefit earlier and if he has paid the interest already he would also be eligible for rebate of 2/3 portion of the interest. "

Therefore, the complainant claimed that he is entitled to get Rs. 88,547 from the bank and a similar amount from the Coffee Board.

The opposite parties denied that the complainant is entitled to such a rebate. According to them the Special Coffee Term Loan is a scheme introduced by the Government on 26. 5. 2005 and the package of relief was announced for the existing special coffee term loan. The grower, the bank and Coffee Board have to share total interest burden and this scheme is applicable to Special Coffee Term Loan (SPCL) account. As the complainant has repaid his entire loan on 3. 4. 2005 prior to the announcement of the scheme he is not entitled for the same.

THE District Forum after analysing the whole case in great detail, and also studying the press release which appeared in Prajavani as well as the press release issued by the Coffee Board allowed the complaint and issued direction as mentioned supra. The State Commission dismissed the appeal with the following observation : "since the order of the DF is in conformity with the notification issued by the Union of India, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. "

Short submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that as per the scheme the borrowers were to pay 1/3rd of the interest due to the creditor bank, remaining 2/3rd interest burden was to be shared equally by the revision petitioner bank and Government of India. She further submitted that State Commission ought to have appreciated that all the Government notifications are to be construed strictly and that the scheme was with prospective effect from the date of announcement and is applicable only to loanee farmers/planters whereas the respondent had already repaid his full loan and hence he was not the loanee farmer.

SHE concluded by saying that subsidy should be given only to those farmers who have not paid their dues in time. The implication of this argument in our view is that the Government scheme is meant to encourage defaulters, and not honest pay masters. The extract of the scheme which is very crucial to the case on hand reads as follows : such of those coffee growers who have paid 1/3rd interest or more would also be eligible for the rebate in interest to the tune of 2/3rd. Hence we do not see any force in this argument as the scheme announced by the Government of India is a welfare scheme for the benefit of the coffee growers wherein the grower, the bank and the Coffee Board have to share equally the total interest burden.

WE do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the lower Fora warranting interference under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. There is no order as to cost. Revision Petition dismissed.