AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
The petitioner / complainant, who is a farmer, took a loan from the respondent No.2 for agricultural purposes. Considering the plight of the farmers who had suffered on account of a natural calamity, the Government came out with a scheme giving inter-alia 100% waiver of the loan to small farmers owning less than five acres of land. The petitioner, who had taken a loan of about 80,000/- from the respondent No.2 was denied the benefit of the said loan on the ground that he owned seven acres of land, whereas in fact the land owned by him was less than two acres. Being aggrieved the petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
The consumer complainant was opposed by the respondents, who inter-alia stated in their reply that as per their record the complainant was owner of the seven acres of land and therefore, he was not entitled to 100% waiver of the loan. The waiver to the extent of 25% applicable to the farmers owning seven acres of land however, was granted to him. The District Forum having dismissed the consumer complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
A finding of act has been recorded by the District Forum that in fact, the complainant / petitioner owned less than five acres of land. However for the purpose of availing loan from the Society, he had claimed to be owner of the seven acres of land. A copy of the relevant register exhibit OP-1 was filed before the District Forum, which showed that the land holding of the complainant was seven acres. The State Commission noticed that he had availed limit for Rabi crop to the extent of Rs.1,01,150/- and to the extent of Rs.1,65,550/- for the Kharif crop. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being illiterate, he having put his thumb mark on the register, was not aware of the extent of the land holding recorded n the said register and in any case, he had availed loan only to the extent of about Rs.60,000/-, inclusive of all interest, which would have been made available even to a farmer owning two acres of land.
The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced the original register bearing thumb mark of the complainant, which clearly shows his land holding to be seven acres. The said entry in the register must necessarily have been made at the behest of the complainant since no-one other than the complainant was to gain by his obtaining a higher loan limit, on the basis of the land holding measuring seven acres. Had he disclosed that the land owned by him was less than two acres, the limit sanctioned to him would obviously have been much less. He having got the said limit sanctioned, it would be irrelevant that he did not avail the whole of the said limit and availed only a part of it. In fact, the complainant petitioner played a fraud upon the society, for taking a loan, by claiming to be owner of seven acres of land whereas he owned less than two acres of such land. A person who obtains loan from a Cooperative society in such a fraudulent manner, by making misrepresentation as regards the extent of the land owned by him, is not entitled to any relief.
The petitioner having obtained loan from the society by playing fraud upon it with respect to his land holding is not entitled to any relief. The revision petition, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.