State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chandigarh Primary Co-Operative ... vs Mohinder Singh Son Of Shri Bhagat Singh on 24 May, 2013
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 503 of 2009
Date of institution: 13.4.2009
Date of decision : 24.5.2013
1. The Chandigarh Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development
Bank Ltd., Ropar through Shri Raj Kumar Manager.
2. Managing Director, The Chandigarh Primary Co-operative
Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., (wrongly impleaded as such,
The correct name is Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural
Development Bank Ltd., Bank Square Sector 17, Chandigarh
through Dr. H.S. Kohli, Addl. Managing Director)
.....Appellants
Versus
Mohinder Singh son of Shri Bhagat Singh resident of Village Khurkewal,
Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.2.2009
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. D.P. Gupta, Advocate
For the respondent : Ex.-parte.
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties- The Chandigarh Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. etc. (hereinafter called 'the appellants') against the order dated 27.2.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the respondent/complainant(hereinafter called 'the respondent') was accepted by the District Forum.
First Appeal No. 503 of 2009 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was the owner of 7 Kanal 2 Marla land situated at village Malhewal, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar and he had taken a loan of Rs. 70,000/- from appellant No. 1 for agriculture purpose to purchase Trolley in the year 2003. The respondent repaid Rs. 30,000/- in two installments i.e. on 30.6.2007 and 8.12.2007. It was further pleaded that there was a Central Government Loan Relief Scheme in the year 2008(wrongly mentioned as 2007)(hereinafter called 'the scheme') for the farmers. On the basis of the scheme, the R.B.I. issued directions to all the banks on 20.9.2008. The respondent approached appellant No. 1 to take the benefit of the scheme towards his above loan case but it was told by the officials of appellant No. 1 that the loan case of the respondent did not come under the scheme as he was not a small farmer as he was owner of more than 8 acres of a land but the scheme was for the farmers owing land below 5 acres. The respondent told the officials of appellant No. 1 that he was owner of land masuring 7K 2 Marla only and as such, he was eligible/entitled for the relief under the scheme. The officials of appellant No. 1 told that as per their information the respondent was owner of 64 Kanals of land, as such, he was not eligible. Then the respondent approached office of appellant No. 2 at Chandigarh and approached the officials but they also showed their inability to do anything despite written application was submitted by the respondent to the Manager of appellant No. 1 on 25.9.2008 but the same was not accepted and then registered A.D. notice was also served upon appellant No. 1. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellants did not include the respondent in the scheme as per the direction of the R.B.I., as such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The complaint was filed and it was prayed that the appellants First Appeal No. 503 of 2009 3 may be directed to waive the outstanding loan amount as well as also pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by appellant No. 1 taking preliminary objections that as per the Co-operative Societies Act, the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum and the same was liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was replied that as per Clause 3.7 Explanation 1 of the scheme, the respondent was not covered under the scheme. Clause Clause 3.7 Explanation 1 of the scheme is reproduced:-
"3.7. 'Other Farmer' means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 2 hectares (more than 5 acres). Explanation:
1. The classification of eligible farmers as per the above landholding criteria under the Scheme would be based on the total extent of land owned by the farmer either singly or as joint holder (in the case of an owner-farmer) or the total extent of land cultivated by the farmer (as tenant or share cropper), at the time of sanction of the loan, irrespective of any subsequent changes in ownership or possession."
4. It was further pleaded that as per the report of the Field Officer the total holding of the respondent was 8 acres and the loan was also obtained by the respondent jointly with Smt. Gurcharan Kaur. The scheme was applicable only to the small farmers or marginal farmers as defined in the scheme and the entire eligible amount was to be waived. But in the case of other farmers there was a "one time settlement(O.T.S.) scheme", under which the farmer was entitled for a rebate of 25% of the eligible amount, subject to the condition that the farmer pay the balance of 75% of the eligible amount. Provided that in the case of revenue Districts listed in Annexure-1' other farmers' will be given OTS rebate of 25% of the eligible amount or Rs. 20000/- which was higher subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of the eligible amount.
5. Rs. 33,192/- was overdue/outstanding against the respondent and he was eligible for relief of Rs. 8292/- if he deposited the remaining First Appeal No. 503 of 2009 4 75% amount in three installments falling due on 30.9.2008, 31.3.2009 and 30.6.2009. But the respondent had not deposited the same, as such, it was prayed that the complaint of the respondent was liable to be dismissed.
6. Reply was also filed by appellant No. 2 adopting the similar stand, which was taken by respondent No. 1 in his reply and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. The complaint of the respondent was accepted by the District Forum after hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record and the appellants were directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the fact that the respondent was the owner of land only to the extent of 11K 19 Marlas alongwith his wife Gurcharan Kaur unless and until tangible proof is gathered by the O.Ps. showing that this version of the complainant was wrong and in fact, he was owner of more than 5 acres of land. The appellants were directed to pass self speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. For the inconvenience and hardship having been caused to the respondent due to this act of deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the respondent which will include costs of litigation.
8. Aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the appeal is filed by the appellants on the grounds that the District Forum gravelly erred in holding that the appellants have rendered deficient in service, the District Forum has failed to appreciate that the respondent does not fall under the definition of 'consumer', the District Forum failed to appreciate that only the Grievance Redressal Officer was the exclusive authority under the scheme to decide the dispute if any referred to him. The District Forum was also not having jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as per Section 55 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The order of the District First Appeal No. 503 of 2009 5 Forum is against the well settled principles of law and based on conjectures and surmises, as such, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.
10. It is admitted fact between the parties that the respondent obtained a loan of Rs. 70,000/- from appellant No. 1 for agriculture purposes to purchase the Trolley. It is also admitted case of both the parties that the Central Government announced a debt waiver and debt relief scheme for the farmers. Clause 3 of the scheme is relevant to decide the dispute, which is reproduced:-
"In the case of a farmer, who has obtained investment credit for alias activities where the principle loan amount does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- he would be classified as small and marginal farmer and where the principle amount exceeds Rs. 50,000/- he would be classified as other farmer' irrespective in both case of the size of land holding, if any."
11. So from the above clause, the respondent had obtained loan of Rs. 70,000/- from appellant No. 1 and he falls under the definition of other farmer' irrespective that he was having 1 acre land or 8 acres of land.
12. Clause 6 relates to the debt relief of other farmers, which is reproduced:-
"6. Debt Relief 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';
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.First Appeal No. 503 of 2009 6
20,000, whichever is higher, subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of the 'eligible amount'."
13. Clause 7.3 also relates to the farmer classified as 'other farmer' regarding the repayment of the loan and to give undertaking, which is also reproduced:-
"7.3. A farmer classified as 'other farmer' eligible for OTS relief shall give an undertaking agreeing to pay his share (that is eligible amount minus the amount of OTS relief) in not more than three instalments and the first two instalments shall be for an amount not less than one-third of his share. The last dates of payment in the case of three instalments will be September 30, 2008; march 31, 2009 and June 30, 2009."
14. Clause 10 relates to the applications of the lending institutions.
"10. Obligations of the lending institutions 10.1 Every lending institution shall be responsible for the correctness and integrity of the lists of farmers eligible under this Scheme and the particulars of the debt waiver or debt relief in respect of each farmer. Every document maintained, every list prepared and every certificate issued by a lending institution for the purposes of this Scheme shall bear the signature and designation of an authorized officer of the lending institution.
10.2 Every lending institution shall appoint one or more Grievance Redressal Officers for each State (having regard to the number of branches in that State). The name and address of the Grievance Redressal Officer concerned shall be displayed in each branch of the lending institution.
The Grievance Redressal Officer shall have the authority to receive representations from aggrieved farmers and pass appropriate orders thereon. The order of the Grievance Redressal Officer shall be final. 10.3 Any farmer who is aggrieved on the ground that his name has not been included in either of the two lists referred to in paragraph 7.1 or on the ground that his name has been included in the wrong list or on the ground that the relief granted to him has been calculated wrongly, may make a representation through the branch from which he received the loan or directly to the Grievance Redressal Officer of the lending institution concerned and every such representation shall be disposed of within 30 days of receipt thereof."
15. Clause 12 relates to the publicity of the scheme, which is also reproduced:-
"12. Publicity First Appeal No. 503 of 2009 7 12.1. A copy of this Scheme in English and in the official language or languages of the State/Union Territory shall be displayed in each branch of every lending institution covered under this Scheme. 12.2. A copy of this Scheme will be available on the websites of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services; RBI; and NABARD."
16. We have perused the reply of the appellants. As per their version the respondent was not entitled for any relief under the scheme as he was holding 8 acres of land. But as per Clause 6.1 of the scheme, the respondent was entitled for the rebate of 25% of the eligible amount.
17. The version of the appellants was that only Grievance Redressal Officer was the exclusive authority to decide the dispute, if any, referred to him. But the appellants have not disclosed the name of the Grievance Redressal Officer. Even in the reply it was not stated that any Grievance Redressal Officer was appointed to redress the grievances of the aggrieved farmers.
18. The appellants were also not pleaded that the scheme was displayed in English and in the official language or language of the State in its branch/landing institution covered under the scheme.
19. So it is proved beyond doubt that the respondent was entitled for relief as per Clause 3 of the scheme but he was not considered by the appellants. The appellants also not acted as per the scheme, as such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
20. The version of the appellants that the District Forum was not having the jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as per Section 55 of the Cooperative Society Act, 1961 is also not correct.
21. We have perused Sections 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, which relates to the touching of the business of the Cooperative Society, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:- First Appeal No. 503 of 2009 8
"55(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the following be deemed to the disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of co- operative society, namely:-
(a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;
(b) a claim by a society against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debut or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;
(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any Officer of the society;
22. The Consumer Protection Act was enacted in India only to protect the interest of the consumers, which is in addition to the other provisions available under the other enacements for reressal of disputes in addition to the remedies available under the Act. We have to consider as regard the additional jurisdiction conferred on the Forums and not their exclusion as it was also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricutlural Credit Society Versus M. Lalitha (Dead) through LRs and others", 2004(1) CLT 456. The relevant part of the same is as under:-
".........Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 was passed to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers and for the purpose, to make provision for the establishment of consumer council and other authorities in the settlement of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith. It seeks, inter alia, to promote and protect the rights of consumers such as protection against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property, the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against their trade practices; the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to an authority of goods at competitive prices; the right to be heard and to be assured that the interest of consumers will receive due consideration at appropriate forums; the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers and right to consumer education. The object is also to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes, a quasi judicial machinery is sought to be set up First Appeal No. 503 of 2009 9 at the district, State and Central levels. These quasi judicial bodies will observe principles of natural justice and have been empowered to give relief of specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalities for non-compliance of orders given by quasi judicial bodies have also been provided.
10. The preamble of the Act declares that it is an Act to provide for better protection of the interest of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers disputes and matters connected therewith. In Section 3 of the Act in clear and unambiguous terms it is stated that the provisions of 1986 Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of the any other law for the time being in force.
11. From the statement of objects and reasons and the scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers.....
23. The objection regarding the bar of the District Forum was also dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the Hon'ble National Commission in number of judgments and it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission in "MAHYCO MONSANTO BIO TECH (I) LTD. & ANR. Versus BODDULURI JEEVAN KUMAR & ANR.", III (2009) CPJ 379 (NC) in para No. 14 as follows:-
14. Another objection raised by the petitioner is that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable to the present case as the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds Rules, 1968 are applicable and in this connection, it has been submitted that Apex Court in National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Madusudan Reddy, Civil Appeal No. 10813/03 has granted special leave on the question where the provisions of Seeds Act, 1966 over ride the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. In fact, this issue has been dealt with by this Commission in National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. P.V. Krishna Reddy (supra). In the said case, it has been held that the issue has been concluded by judgment in National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Madusudan Reddy (supra), wherein it was contended that the Seeds Act, 1966 was special Act and would prevail over the general Act. This contention was rejected on the ground that Seeds Act, 1966 is completely silent on the situation where a farmer has purchased seeds from an authorized dealer First Appeal No. 503 of 2009 10 which failed to give desired results. It was further held that the Seeds Act did not deal with the pathos of the farmer, who has invested money, time and resources to get fruits but failed to get it on account of poor quality/defective seeds. Besides that, it was also held therein that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a Special Act having additional/extended jurisdiction, inasmuch as Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is a clear bar. There are a number of Apex Court's pronouncements on this aspect that the remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act is in addition to and not derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
24. As per the above settled law, the District Forum was having the jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.
25. The respondent is covered under Clause 6 of the scheme, as such, the order of the District Forum is modified and the appellants are directed to consider the case of the respondent as per Clause 6 of the scheme and provide the benefit, which is available to him under the Scheme.
26. The appeal of the appellants is meritless and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the respondent by the appellants within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. The impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
27. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 14.5.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
28. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 500/- with the Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
First Appeal No. 503 of 2009 11
29. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
30. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
May 24, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member