State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
H.P. State Co-Op. Agriculture And Rural ... vs Sh. Narender Sharma. & Anr. on 23 April, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.06/2015
Date of Presentation: 31.01.2015
Date of Decision: 23.04.2015
................................................................................
H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture &
Rural Development Bank Limited,
Kasumpti, Shimla-9, H.P.
Through its Managing Director.
... Appellant.
Versus
(1) Narender Sharma, son of Shri Mansa Ram,
Resident of Village Sari, Post Office Angi-Bharmana,
Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.
GPA of Shri Rama Nand, son of Shri Het Ram,
Resident of Village Sari, Post Office Angi-Bharmana,
Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.
(2) NABARD,
SDA Complex, Kasumpati,
Shimla-9, H.P.
... Respondents.
.....................................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the appellant: Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2: Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate.
................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Versus Narender Sharma & Anr.
(First Appeal No.06/2015) Protection Act, 1986, filed against it and respondent No.2, by respondent No.1, Narender Sharma, has been allowed only as against it (the appellant) and a direction given to it, to grant relief to respondent No.1, as per Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, for the entire eligible amount as on the date of implementation of the scheme and thereafter, to refund him, the amount deposited by him, after implementation of the scheme, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, till its realization and also to pay `25,000/-, as compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Narender Sharma, who owns agricultural land to the extent of six bigha eighteen biswas, took a loan of `1.00 lac, from the appellant, for dairy farm, in the year 2003. He alleged that he had been paying the instalments either personally or through one Rama Nand, against receipts and against the loan of `1.00 lac, he had already paid `1.00 lac. He alleged that in the year 2008, Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, was introduced by the Government of India, vide circular dated Page 2 of 10 H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Versus Narender Sharma & Anr.
(First Appeal No.06/2015) 27.05.2008, in terms of which the entire loan was to be waived. Respondent No.1 alleged that he was called by the appellant to its branch in September, 2009 and informed that he had committed default and a sum of `1,20,000/-, approximately due from him, but at the same time, he was told that a scheme had been introduced by the Government of India, under which, he could seek waiver to the extent of 25%, by paying 75% of the outstanding liability. He alleged that he paid `15,000/- on 29.09.2009, `10,000/- on 03.12.2009 and another sum of `10,000/- on 31.03.2010 and that thereafter, he was informed by the appellant that the funds allocated by the Government of India under the scheme had been completely utilized and, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief, under the aforesaid scheme.
3. Respondent No.1 alleged that he being a marginal farmer, as his holding was only six bigha eighteen biswas, or say less than one hectare, he was entitled to waiver of the entire amount, outstanding at the time of introduction of the aforesaid scheme. He, therefore, sought direction to Page 3 of 10 H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Versus Narender Sharma & Anr.
(First Appeal No.06/2015) the appellant and respondent No.2 to give benefit of entire amount of loan and to pay him `1.00 lac, equivalent to the loan taken by him, with interest and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
4. Complaint was contested by the appellant and it was stated that the loan had been raised by respondent No.1 for allied activities, i.e. for dairy farm and, therefore, in terms of the scheme, he was to be categorized as other farmer and the benefit available to other farmer in the scheme was to the extent of 25% of the total amount outstanding on the date of introduction of the scheme. It was stated that liability of respondent No.1, as on the date of introduction of the scheme, was `89,118/- and that after giving discount of `22,279/-, equivalent to 25% of the aforesaid amount, a sum of `66,839/-, was worked out, as the money due from respondent No.1 and this amount, was to be paid by him by 30th June, 2009, in case he was to get the benefit of 25% relief and he having not paid the entire amount, equivalent to the 75% by that date, Page 4 of 10 H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Versus Narender Sharma & Anr.
(First Appeal No.06/2015) was not entitled to any benefit, not even of 25% relief under the scheme.
5. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant, as aforesaid.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. Scheme, under which, respondent No.1 claims the relief is available at pages 121 to 135 of the record of learned District Forum.
8. Clause-3 of the scheme defines Direct Agricultural Loan, Short Term Production Loan, Investment Loan, Cooperative Credit Institution, Marginal Farmer, Small Farmer and Other Farmer. Respondent No.1 took the loan for dairy farm and, therefore, his loan falls in the definition of Investment Loan, which is given in clause 3.3(b). The same reads as follows:-
3.3 'Investment Loan' means
(a) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(b) Investment credit for allied activities extended for acquiring assets in respect of activities allied to agriculture e.g. dairy, Page 5 of 10 H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Versus Narender Sharma & Anr.
(First Appeal No.06/2015) poultry farming, goatery, sheep rearing, piggery, fisheries, bee-keeping, green houses and biogas.
9. Marginal farmer is defined to mean a farmer cultivating agricultural land upto one hectare. This definition is given in clause 3.5. Small farmer, as per clause 3.6 means a farmer cultivating agricultural land of more than one hectare and up to two hectares. Clause 3.7, defines other farmer. As per this clause, a farmer cultivating agricultural land of more than two hectares is other farmer. There are five explanations below clause 3.7, and explanation 3 says that in the case of a farmer who has obtained investment credit for allied activities, he will be classified as "small and marginal farmer" in case the loan does not exceed `50,000/-, but would be classified as other farmer, where the principal amount exceeds `50,000/-, irrespective of the size of land holding. That means, where the loan is investment loan for allied activities, it is not the extent of the holding which is relevant for determining the category of the farmer, but it is the Page 6 of 10 H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Versus Narender Sharma & Anr.
(First Appeal No.06/2015) amount of loan, which is relevant for determining his category, ignoring the extent of his holding.
10. Since, respondent No.1 had taken the loan for dairy farm, or say for allied activities, and the amount of loan was in excess of `50,000/-, he falls in the category of other famer, despite the fact that his holding, as per his claim is only six bigha eighteen biswas, or say less than one hectare. Therefore, he cannot claim the benefits, under the scheme, which were available to a marginal farmer or a small farmer.
11. Respondent No.1 being other farmer, within the meaning of scheme, was entitled to 25% reduction in the amount found outstanding on the date of implementation of the scheme. Admittedly, the liability of respondent No.1 on that debt was `89,118/-. It is respondent No.1's own case that he was called to the concerned branch of the appellant bank and his liability after giving discount of 25% was worked out at `66,839/-. This amount of `66,839/-, which was equivalent to 75% of his liability was payable by him in three instalments upto September 30, 2008; March 31, 2009 and June Page 7 of 10 H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Versus Narender Sharma & Anr.
(First Appeal No.06/2015) 30, 2009. Reference in this behalf may be made to Clause 7.3 of the scheme. Clause 7.5 of the scheme says that amount of relief being share of Central Government, was to be credited in the account of other farmer, only upon the farmer paying his share, in full.
12. Respondent No.1 per his own case paid only a sum of `35,000/-, as against the amount of `66,839/-, worked out as the amount payable by him, for being given the discount, equivalent to 25% of the outstanding liability, in terms of the scheme. He having failed to pay the amount, in full, disentitled himself to the discount, per Clause 7.5 of the scheme. It may be stated that the scheme did not provide for straightaway reduction in debt liability by way of relief. The scheme provided for one time settlement of debt, in the case of other farmer and the benefit of discount to be given only in the event of the debtor paying 75%, of the debt liability within the given time schedule. Respondent No.1 paid only `35,000/-, out of `66,839/-, which amount was worked out as 75% of his outstanding liability.
Page 8 of 10 H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Versus Narender Sharma & Anr.
(First Appeal No.06/2015)
13. Learned counsel representing respondent No.1 submits that in para-2 of the reply, appellant has stated that the benefit, equivalent to 25% of the outstanding amount, had been given to respondent No.1 and at the same time, now the appellant is demanding a sum of `2.00 lacs approximately, on account of money due from him. In reply, what the appellant has stated is that the relief, in terms of the scheme, equivalent to 25% was given. This relief was given subject to respondent No.1 paying the remaining 75% amount of money, within time frame mentioned in Clause 7.3 read with Clause 7.5 of the scheme, to which reference has been made, hereinabove. Of course, appellant has not stated so in the reply, but that does not mean that respondent No.1 was to get the benefit of 25% discount, without complying with the terms of the scheme, which were required to be complied with by him. For getting the benefit of 25% discount, he was supposed to have paid the remaining 75% amount within the time frame, indicated in the scheme itself and on account of his having failed to pay the remaining amount, within Page 9 of 10 H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Versus Narender Sharma & Anr.
(First Appeal No.06/2015) the aforesaid time frame, he cannot say that on the principle of equity, money equivalent to 25% of outstanding amount be credited in his account.
14. In view of the above stated position, appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside and consequently, the complaint filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed.
15. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member April 23, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 10 of 10