AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 06 -04 -2011 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 2764/2010 Branch Manager, Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank and Anr. Vs. H.S. Shivalingappa, by which while dismissing appeal, order of the District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent availed loan of Rs.40,000/ - through Loan Account No. 126 from opposite party no. 1/petitioner no. 1 on 06 -05 -2006 to grow coconut and bananas. Opposite party no. 2 is Divisional office of the bank. It was further submitted that complainant was eligible for waiver of loan under Central Government Agricultural Loan Waiver Scheme but opposite party have not waived the loan and issued notice for re -payment of loan. It was further submitted that in the passbook it has been mentioned that complainant has re -paid the loan though he has not paid loan. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that complainant does not fall within the purview of waiver scheme as complainant has already made payment of Rs.3,200/ - on 21 -01 -2008 and Rs.40,000/ - on 24 -01 -2008 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to waive the loan and pay Rs.500/ - as cost. Appeal filed by the opposite party was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed.
HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as no loan was outstanding against the complainant, he was not entitled to any waiver under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, even then learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.
IT is not disputed that complainant availed loan facility on 06.05.2006. As per documents, complainant deposited Rs.3,200/ - on 21.01.2008 and Rs.40,000/ - on 24 -01 -2008 and nothing remained due against complainant. In such circumstances there was no question of waiver of loan under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. As per this scheme loan was to remain unpaid till 29.02.2008 whereas in the case in hand loan stood re -paid by 24.01.2008.
COMPLAINAN T submitted in the complaint that he has not re -paid loan but it cannot be believed as there is entry of re -payment in passbook. Even if he has not re -paid the loan and according to petitioner loan stood re -paid then there was no occasion for the complainant to proceed with the complaint because nothing was recoverable from the complainant as opposite party admitted re -payment of loan. Learned District Forum mentioned in its order that balance of Rs.65/ - has been shown in the passbook. It appears that this amount may be pertaining to interest and even if Rs.65/ - remained unpaid it stands waived in the light of aforesaid scheme and in such circumstances revision petition is to be allowed.
CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 06 -04 -2011 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 2764/2010 Branch Manager, Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank and Anr. Vs. H.S. Shivalingappa and order of District Forum dated 11 -05 -2010 passed in Complaint No. 237/2009 H.S. Shivalingappa Vs. Branch Manager, Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank and Anr. is set aside and complaint stands infructuous as re -payment has already been made.