Manager Cauvery Kalpatharu , Cauvery Kalpatharu vs Y R Chandra Murthy

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.03.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 2756/09 - The Manager, Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank & Anr. Vs. Y.R. Chandra Murthy by which order of District Forum was upheld and appeal was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent availed agricultural loan of Rs.71,000/- from Petitioner No. 1 on 9.10.2006 and he executed necessary documents pertaining to aforesaid short term loan. Complainant could not repay the loan within a stipulated period of one year and the petitioner demanded loan by writing letters. Complainant was defaulter of the loan as on 31.12.2007 and as per the loan waiver and loan relief scheme 2008, issued by the Government of India, this loan stood waived. Even then the petitioner demanded repayment of loan alleging that complainant had transacted with the petitioner on 4.10.2007 and complainant was not defaulter of the loan as on 31.12.2007 whereas the complainant had not transacted with the petitioner on 4.10.2007. Complainant filed complaint and sought direction to treat the amount due Rs.76,521/- of the loan as waived under the scheme. Petitioner filed reply and submitted that as the complainant had already paid the loan amount with interest on 4.10.2007, the complainant was not eligible and entitled to get any loan waiver under the scheme of 2008 and hence complaint be dismissed. District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to waive the loan of the complainant and pay Rs.500/- as cost which order was upheld by the State Commission.

HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

IT is an admitted fact that the complainant obtained loan of Rs.71,000/- from the petitioner no.1 on 9.10.2006 under the card which was valid for 3 years subject to annual review. As per Condition ''E'' of the loan agreement, no withdrawal in the account should remain outstanding for more than 12 months. As per Annexure 2B, Rs.71,000/- were deposited by the complainant on 4.10.2007 and on the same day vide Annexure 2A, Rs.1250/- were also deposited by the complainant with the petitioner no. 1. It appears that this amount was deposited as per terms and conditions of loan as the amount was to be deposited within a period of 12 months. It also appears that on the same day i.e. 4.10.2007 on the request of the complainant, new loan of Rs.71,000/- was granted to the complainant and his account was credited with this amount. Thus, it becomes clear that loan taken on 9.10.2006 was cleared on 4.10.2007.

AS per Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, for the eligibility of debt waiver, loan must have been disbursed upto 31.3.2007 and had to be overdue as on 31.12.2007 and must have remained unpaid till 29.2.2008. In the present case, neither second loan was disbursed upto 31.3.2007 nor did it become overdue on 31.3.2007 and in such circumstance waiver of Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 was not applicable to the complainant''s loan which was taken on 4.10.2007. It appears that District Forum and the State Commission were persuaded with the letters of the petitioner no. 1 issued on 12.10.07, 5.12.07 and 14.12.07. Perusal of letters reveals that only interest amount was demanded. This clearly shows that principal loan of Rs.71,000/- taken on 9.10.2006 had already been deposited on 4.10.2007 along with interest of Rs.1250/- as some part of the interest. Learned Counsel for the respondent could not show any provision under the scheme on account of which loan stood waived. Learned District Forum and the State Commission have committed error in holding applicability of scheme to the complainant''s loan and waiving the loan amount with interest. No doubt, law abiding farmer has been put to loss, but we are helpless as his loan does not fall within four corners of waiver scheme.

CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition is allowed and order passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 2756/09 - The Manager, Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank and Anr. Vs. Y.R. Chandra Murthy and the order of the District Forum in Complaint No. 197 of 2008 Y.R. Chandra Murthy Vs. The Manager, Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank and Anr. both are set aside. There will be no order as to cost.