State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Shahanaz Sultana vs 1. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd., on 10 October, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. A/25/2017 (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/09/2014 in Case No. CC/1/2012 of District Medak) 1. Smt. Shahanaz Sultana w/o Ghouse Pasha, aged about 34 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No 11-63, Block 10, Narsapur, Medak ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1. M/s. ICICI Bank ltd., Rep by its Authorized officer, Plot No 12, 6th floor, Northwing, Tower 2, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 32 2. 2. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Sangareddy Branch. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 10 Oct 2017 Final Order / Judgement
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD FA 25 OF 2017 AGAINST CC NO. 01 OF 2012, DISTRICT FORUM, MEDAK AT SANGA REDDY Between :
Smt. Shahanaz Sultana, W/o Ghouse Pasha, Aged about 34 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o H.No. 11-63, Block-10, Narsapur (V), Narsapur (M), Medak District .. Appellant/complainant And M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Plot No,. 12, 6th floor, Northwing, Tower-2, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 32.
Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Sangareddy Branch. Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant/complainant : M/s. V.V. Patil Counsel for the Respondents/Opp.parties : M/s.G.Kalyan Chakravarthy Coram : Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla ... President Tuesday, the Tenth Day of October Two Thousand Seventeen Oral order : ( per Hon' ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President ) *** 1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the unsuccessful complainant to set aside the impugned order dated 24.09.2014 made in CC No. 01/2012 on the file of the District Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy and allow the appeal. 2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she availed an agricultural related loan of Rs. 2,73,000/- to purchase a tractor from the opposite party bank in the year 2006 by executing necessary documents. After purchase of the tractor from a dealer, M/s Durga Automotives did not deliver her registration papers of the vehicle in terms of the contract. Due to scant rains, she suffered huge loss. In view of the draught situation, the Central Government came forward with a debt waiver and subsidy scheme to help the affected farmers. Though, she is eligible to avail the benefit under the said scheme, the 2nd opposite party bank failed to include her name in the list of beneficiaries. She could not attend a meeting held on 24.12.2009 due to telangana agitation. The opposite party bank failed to respond her requests to consider her as a beneficiary under the scheme but insisted her to pay the balance due by issuing demand notices and that as such under compelling circumstances she paid EMIs of Rs. 30,319/- on 16.01.2007, Rs. 64,007/- on 28.11.2007, Rs. 64,007/- on 04.08.2008 and Rs. 64,007/- on 12.03.2009. She received a letter dated 23.04.2010 along with annexure from the opposite party bank regarding review of her name under the above noted scheme on which she once again requested the opposite party bank to consider her name for waiver of the loan but of no avail. If the opposite parties consider her name for waiver of the loan under the above said scheme, she would have got the benefit. Due to adamant attitude of the opposite party bank, she suffered financially and mentally which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- apart from waiver of loan amount of Rs. 1,28,014/- with interest due to the deficiency on the part of the opposite party bank, to pay an amount of Rs. 2,22,340/-, which was collected by it illegally and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
4) The opposite parties resisted the claim of the complainant by way of written version on the grounds, in brief, that as the complainant furnished wrong address to her dealer at the time of delivery of the tractor and failed to correct the same thereafter, its papers could not be delivered to her. They have asserted that the complainant does not come under the Debt Waiver Scheme because she paid Rs. 64,007/- on 28.11.2007 as a half yearly installment i.e. before the specified date of 31.12.2007 as per the scheme. Thus she cannot be categorized as a defaulter on the notified date and that she cannot claim refund of Rs. 1,28,014/-. In fact she is very irregular in payment of the installments in terms of the agreement and that to avoid the outstanding dues she filed the present case with false allegations. The opposite parties have also contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her case, the complainant filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-16 and the opposite parties marked Ex. B-1 and B2. Heard the counsel on both sides.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the unsuccessful complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8) Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard both sides.
9) The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? (ii) To what relief ? 10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant availed an agricultural loan of Rs. 2,73,000/- from the respondents/opposite parties' bank and purchased a tractor vide Ex.A8 from one M/s Durga Automotives, Quthbullapur, in the month of September, 2006 by executing necessary documents in favour of the bank. There is also no dispute that she did not receive registration papers of the said tractor, but, it was rebutted by the respondents/opposite parties' bank that she did not note her correct address in the material papers at the time of purchase of the vehicle and that as such they could not be deliver to her. There is also no dispute that the Central Government has announced Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 for debt waiver of the agriculturists.
11) The main contention of the appellant/complainant is that the District Forum failed to see the guidelines of Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 in proper manner. As per definition No. 4(b), in the case of an investment loan, the instalments of such loan that are overdue ( together with applicable interest on such installments) if the loan was (i) disbursed up to 31.03.2007 and over due as on 31.12.2007 and the remaining unpaid until 29.02.2008 and it clearly goes to show that as on the date of scheme even unpaid amount also covered under overdue loan and hence she is entitled for waiver of the scheme. Counsel for the respondents/opposite parties argued that the appellant/complainant has agreed to terms and conditions of repayment of loan in 36 installments on half yearly basis and since the appellant has made payment half yearly installlment of Rs.64,007/- on 28.11.2007 well before the due date of 31.12.2007, the appellant cannot be considered to be financially weak and unable to repay the loan and hence the scheme cannot be applied to the appellant since the scheme intended for formers who are financially weak and unable to repay the loan but not to the farmers who are able and have a capacity to promptly repay it before the due date. The complainant has filed copies of pass book and title book under Exs.A6 & A7 respectively would show that she is an agriculturist and small farmer. Ex.A13 shows that she purchased the Tractor for an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs. It appears the bank paid an amount of Rs.2,48,000/-to M/s. Durga Automotives and remaining balance of Rs.1,52,000/- by way of cash by the appellant/complainant. She paid total amount of Rs. 2,22,340/-, i.e., Rs. 30,319/- on 16.01.2007, Rs. 64,007/- on 28.11.2007, Rs. 64,007/- on 04.08.2008 and Rs. 64,007/- on 12.03.2009 as instalments of the loan.
12). We have perused the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, wherein, Definition 3.6 defines , Small farmer, means, a farmer cultivating ( as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural and of more than 1 hectare and up to 2 hectares ( 5 acres). Admittedly, the appellant/complainant is a farmer cultivating Ac. 3.10 cents as per Ex.A6 and A7 and hence she comes under the definition of ' small farmer'.
13). It is to be determined whether the appellant/complainant is entitled for waiver of loan for purchase of Tractor as per the Scheme. The scope of the Scheme enunciates that the scheme will cover direct agricultural loans extended to marginal and small farmers and other farmers by banks. Definition 3.10 reads as follows :
" Direct Agricultural Loans " means Short Term Production Loans and investment loans provided directly to farmers for agricultural purposes. This would also include such loans provided directly to groups of individuals farmers ( for example Self Help Groups and Joint Liability Groups), provided banks maintain disaggregated data of the loan extended to each farmer belonging to that group ".
As per definition 3.3 (a), Investment Loan means, Investment Credit for direct agricultural activities extended for meeting outlays relating to the replacement and maintenance of wasting assets and for capital investment designed to increase the output from the land, e.g. deepening of wells, sinking of new wells, installation of pump sets, purchase of tractor/pair of bullocks, land development and term loan for traditional and non-traditional plantations and horticulture.
From the above definitions it can be deduced that the said Scheme will be applicable to the Tractor purchased by the appellant/complainant.
14) Now, it is to be determined what is the quantum of amount that is to be waived by the respondents/opposite parties. Clause 4.1 (b) (i) of the Scheme stipulates that the amount eligible for debt waiver or debt relief, in case of an investment loan the instalments of such loan that are overdue ( together with applicable interest on such instalments) if the loan was disbursed up to 31.03.2007 and over due as on 31.12.2007 and the remaining unpaid until 29.02.2008. Here, in the case on hand, the appellant/complainant, by virtue of the scheme, 2008, claims waiver of the unpaid loan amount of Rs.1,28,014/- and also refund of the paid instalments of Rs. 2,22,340/-. The appellant/ complainant in support of her contention stated that on issuance of demand notices she paid the instalment amounts. The respondents/opposite parties have admitted that they have sanctioned loan amount of Rs.2,73,000/- and in which Rs.25,000/- was deducted towards loan process and paid an amount of Rs.2,48,000/- to M/s. Durga Automotive.. She already paid an amount of Rs. 30,319/- on 16.01.2007 and Rs. 64,007/- on 28.11.2007, the total of which comes to Rs.94,326/-. As per Clause 4.1(b) (i) of the above Scheme, 2008, the appellant/complainant is eligible for the waiver of the loan amount of (i.e, Rs.2,73,000/- - Rs.94,326 ) Rs.1,78,674/- The District Forum, may be due to oversight, did not consider the definition 3.3 and dismissed the complaint.
15). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/complainant and the respondents/opposite parties this Commission is of the view that the appellant/complainant is eligible to claim benefit under the scheme, 2008 and that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties' bank and the appellant/complainant is entitled for waiver of the loan amount of Rs.1,78,674/-, She also entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
16). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order and consequently the complaint is allowed in part directing the respondents/opposite parties to waive the loan amount of Rs.1,78,674/-, to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/complainant. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT Dated : 10.10.2017. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER