Coffee Board vs K.S. SEETHARAMA

IN this revision petition challenge is to the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka in Appeal No. 2391/2006 dated 28.11.2006 dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation and also on merits, and confirming the order of the District Forum. Facts of the case in brief :

THE respondent-1 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 respondent-1 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 32/99 and Rs. 4,96,113 in PDL account No. 3/99. 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 respondent-1 with an intention to give the benefit of the scheme announced by the Government notification. The respondent-1 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 2/3rd 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 2/3rd portion of the interest."

Therefore, the respondent-1 claimed that he is entitled to get Rs. 88,547 from the bank and a similar amount from the Coffee Board.

THE petitioner denied that the respondent-1 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 respondent-1 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."

LEARNED Counsel for the revision petitioner argued at length. The thrust of his argument is that as per the scheme to the borrowers were to pay 1/3rd of the interest due the creditor bank, remaining 2/3rd interest burden was to be shared equally by the revision petitioner Board and the creditor Bank. He 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. He concluded by saying that subsidy should be given only to those farmers who have not paid their dues prior to the notification. 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.