CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL And RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK vs K. SARADAMMA

THE Opposite Parties in O.P. No. 436/92 on the file of District Forum, Kollam are the appellants.

THE complainant is the widow of one K. Kuttan Pillai. Kuttan Pillai applied for a loan of Rs. 20,000/- and it was sanctioned. However Kuttan Pillai availed the loan of only 8,000/-. Kuttan Pillai died on 7.12.85 and the balance was not availed. Out of the loan Rs. 3910.45 was paid by the complainant in 1986-87 and 89. It is also the complainant''s case that she produced death certificate of Kuttan Pillai in the Bank. A scheme was evolved in 1990 whereby provision was made to write off the loans of Agriculturists. THE grievances of the complainant is that the benefit of this scheme was not extended to the loan taken by her deceased husband. A demand notice was issued on 1.6.92 claiming the balance of Rs. 7,060/-. The Opposite Party filed version admitting the loan and the death of Kuttan Pillai on 7.12.85. It was also admitted that in the account of Kuttan Pillai an amount of Rs. 3910.45 was paid. However it is contended that no death certificate was produced. It was also stated that since the Bank was not aware of the death of Kuttan Pillai, his loan was not included in the list of debts entitled to the benefit of scheme. The eligibility of the heirs of late Kuttan Pillai to get the loan written off was not disputed. The only contention taken is before 31.3.91 the death of Kuttan Pillai was not brought to the notice of the Bank to take steps to write off the dues in his name. The definite case of the complainant is that she produced me death certificate to the Bank. It was also her definite case that in 1986-87 and 89 she remitted Rs. 3910.45 towards the liability. It is also seen that the demand notice was issued to the complainant and not in the name of Kuttan Pillai. This clearly makes out that the death of the husband of the complainant was in the knowledge of the Opposite Parties and it is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in not including the loan in the eligible test. If the death was not known to the Bank we do not find any reason why this loan was not included in the name of Kuttan Pillai in the list of eligibility. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to accept the version of the Opposite Parties that they were not aware of the death of Kuttan Pillai. We also do not find any reason to disbelieve the complainant when she states that the certificate was in fact produced. Even if the complainant was not ignorant about the necessity of production of the certificate it was the duty of the Bank to direct the complainant to produce it having known that the loan of Kuttan Pillai is eligible for the benefit of the scheme. In the above circumstances we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Appeal dismissed without costs.