State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Desa Singh on 5 May, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1208 of 2012
Date of institution: 12.9.2012
Date of Decision: 5.5.2015
State Bank of India, a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of
India, 1955 having its Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman
Point, Bombay and one of its Branch Office at Chabal, Tehsil and District
Tarn Taran through its Branch Manager and Principal Officer.
Appellant/OP
Versus
1. Desa Singh son of Partap Singh,
2. Yadwinder Singh son of Desa Singh,
3. Iqbal Singh son of Desa Singh,
All residents of Village Daragapu, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.
Respondents/Complainants.
First Appeal against the order dated 21.6.2012
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. A.K. Khunger, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for
Sh. U.K. Kanwar, Advocate
2
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1208 OF 2012
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/OP (hereinafter referred as "the OP") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 21.6.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran(hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No.5 dated 19.1.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants(hereinafter referred as the complainants) was allowed and the notice dated 16.12.2009 issued to the complainants was quashed and the OP was directed to issue the clearance certificate in favour of the complainant.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the OP on the allegations that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 2.50 lacs for the purchase of Farmtrac Tractor 45 in May, 2000 from the OP and executed a mortgage deed in favour of OP. They had returned a sum of Rs. 2,55,800/- to the OP upto 9.12.2005, therefore, nothing was outstanding against the complainants. They were small farmers having agricultural land less than 5 acres in village Dargapur Garbi, Tehsil & Distt. Tarn Taran. The Central Government and the State Government had remitted the full loan amount of small farmers and it was so published in the newspaper also. On the basis of that, the complainant approached the OP that clearance certificate be issued on the basis of debt relief circular issued by the State Government, however, the OPs alleged that there was arrears of Rs. 3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1208 OF 2012 1,58,589/- towards the complainants. The complainant then got issued legal notice but no reply was given, rather, OPs sent a notice dated 16.12.2009 demanding the amount referred above and threatened to auction the land of the complainants under mortgage in case of non-payment, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Op. Hence, the complaint with the direction to the Ops to withdraw the notice dated 16.12.2009 and issue the clearance certificate in favour of the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable as the Ops had already filed a suit for recovery of the outstanding loan amount, which was pending in the Court of Sh. Ajay Mittal, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Tarn Taran and that the complainants had not come to the Court with clean hands. On merits, it was submitted that a loan amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- was disbursed to the complainants i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/- as tractor loan and Rs. 40,000/- as crop loan. It was denied that the total amount was repaid by the complainants, rather, as on 9.12.2005, a sum of Rs. 1,50,294/- plus interest was outstanding in the account of the complainants and a sum of Rs. 4,06,830/- was outstanding upto 15.3.2012. It was denied that the complainants were small farmers owning the loan less than 5 acres. As per the revenue record, the complainants at the time of sanction of loan, they were owing the land measuring 60 kanals 7 marlas as per Fard Haqiqat for the year 1997-98. It was denied that the Central and State Government had waived the full amount of the 4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1208 OF 2012 small farmers or that the loan amount of the complainants was remitted. In fact a sum of Rs. 4,06,830/- was still outstanding in the loan account of the complainant as on 15.3.2012. It was denied that any threat was issued to the complainants to auction their land forcibly and illegally. The complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/A, certificate to waive loan Ex. C-1, jamabandi Ex. C-2, amount deposit receipts Exs. C-3 to 10, copy of passbook Ex. C-11, copy of Fard Exs. C-12 & 13, newspaper cutting Exs. C-14 & 15, legal notice Ex. C-16, postal receipt Ex. C-17, notice dt. 16.12.09 Ex. C-18, reply to legal notice Ex. C-19, postal receipt Ex. C-20, copy of jamabandi Ex. C-21. On the other hand, opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sushil Kumar, Manager, SBI, Jhabal Ex. RW-1/A, jamabandi Exs. R-1 & 2, discharged amount Ex. R-3, copy of civil suit Ex. R-4.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was allowed as referred above.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. In the appeal, it has been contended that the complainant does not come within the definition of the small farmer, therefore, he was not entitled to any debt relief waiver under the Scheme 2008 issued by the Central Government adopted by the State Government 5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1208 OF 2012 and as on 15.3.2012, a sum of Rs. 4,06,830/- was outstanding. The learned District Forum has not properly appreciated the evidence specifically the debt relief waiver scheme of 2008.
9. In case we go through the documents placed on the record, apart from the affidavit of the complainant, which is as per pleas taken in the complaint. The sanction of the loan is admitted. Ex. C-2 is the copy of Jamabandi, Exs. C-3 to C-10 are the deposit receipts. Ex. C-11 is the passbook. Ex. C-12 against copy of Jamabandi, Ex. C-13 is again copy of jamabandi. Exs. C-14&15 is the news item published in Daily Ajit regarding debt waiver scheme. Ex. C-16 is the legal notice and Ex. C-18 is the legal notice received from the OP and its reply was given vide notice dated 24.12.2009 (Ex. C-
19). Whereas the Ops have placed on the record Fard Haquiet for 1997-98 in the name of Desa Singh, Iqbal Singh, Yadwinder Singh sons of Desa Singh Ex. R-1 & 2, statement showing balance amount Ex. R-3, copy of the Civil Suit Ex. R-4. The loan was sanctioned in favour of Desa Singh, Yadwinder Singh and Iqbal Singh and copy of the scheme has been placed on the record by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal in which small farmers has been defined under Point No. 3.6 as under:-
"3.6. 'Small Farmer' means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and up to 2 hectares (5 acres)."
10. Under Clause 3 in the case of the farmer, who had obtained investment credit for allied activities and principal amount does not exceed Rs. 50,000/-, he would be classified as "small and 6 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1208 OF 2012 marginal farmer" and where the principal amount exceeds Rs. 50,000/-, he would be classified as other farmer and as per the averments in the written reply, the complainants were sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,90,000/- i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/- as tractor loan and Rs. 40,000/- as crop loan, which certainly exceeds Rs. 50,000/-, therefore, the complainant comes within the classification of "other farmer". Then according to Jamabandi 1997-98 Desa Singh had a landed property 40 Kanal 4 Marla out of 9 Kanal 17 Marla was sold and balance was 30 Kanal 7 Marla whereas Iqbal Singh and Yadwinder Singh sons of Desa Singh were also a loanee and in their name, the property 8 Kanal 13 Marla has been shown, which comes to 39 Kanal. Whereas the Ops have placed on the record the jamabandi Ex. R-1 of the property in the name of Desa Singh is 41 Kanal 2 Marla and according to Ex. R-2 in the name of Iqbal Singh and Yadwinder Singh sons of Desa Singh, it was 19 Kanal 5 Marlas, in this way, it will comes to 60 Kanal 0.7 Marlas and even if 9 Kanal 17 Marlas, which was sold by Desa Singh is excluded even then it will be more than 40 Kanals and accordingly, they will not come under the definition of small farmer. The debt relief for other farmers has been defined under 6.1, which reads as under;-
"6.1 In the case of 'other farmers', there will be a one time settlement (OTS) Scheme under which the farmer will be given a rebate of 25 per cent of the 'eligible amount' subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of 75 per cent of the 'eligible amount';7
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1208 OF 2012 Provided that in the case of revenue districts listed in Annex.-1, 'other farmers' will be given OTS rebate of 25 per cent of the 'eligible amount' or Rs. 20,000, whichever is higher, subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of the 'eligible amount'."
11. There is no evidence that the complainants had gone for one time settlement by paying balance of 75% of the original amount. In case they have not paid anything, according to Clause 6.1 will not be entitled to debt relief as per this scheme.
12. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant was not able to rebut the copy of jamabandi for the year 1997-98 Exs. R-1 & 2. We do not deny the correctness of jamabandi for the year 1997-98 Exs. C-12 & 13 but it may not be for the entire property. In the affidavit filed by the complainants, it has been simply stated that they were small farmers having less than 5 acres but in case the loan was taken jointly by Desa Singh, Yadwinder Singh and Iqbal Singh and then they will be considered one applicant and their joint property will be taken in that way, the complainant does not come within the definition of the small farmer. The learned District Forum had considered the claim as per news item, even copy of the scheme was not taken on the record and in case we go by the parameters fixed in the scheme, in view of the observations referred above, the complainants does not come within the definition of the 'small farmer' and comes within the definition of 'other farmers' and for taking the benefit as 'other farmer', they have not come forward with One Time Settlement "OTS". Therefore, the findings so recorded 8 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1208 OF 2012 by the District Forum are not correct findings and are required to be set-aside.
13. In view of the above, we accept the appeal. Impugned order is set-aside and the complaint is dismissed being without any merit.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 29.4.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member May 5, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member