RAJ KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Raj Kumar and late Smt. Laxmi Devi took a loan of Rs. 3,30,000/- from Punjab National Bank for purchasing a tractor. Smt. Laxmi Devi died on 31.05.2008. The Government of India with a view to grant debt waiver and debt relief to certain farmers entrusted a scheme known as Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The scheme provided for waiver of eligible amount. The eligible amount was defined in clause 4.1 of the scheme which reads as under:-

(2.) Clause 5 of the scheme provided that in the case of a small or marginal farmer, the entire "eligible amount'' shall be waived. In the case of 'other farmers' there was a one time settlement (OTS) Scheme under which the farmer was to be given a rebate of 25 percent of the 'eligible amount' subject to certain conditions. The case of the petitioners is that though they are marginal farmers within the meaning of clause 3.5 of the scheme since they were cultivating agricultural land upto one hectare and were entitled to the waiver of the entire loan amount, which was payable to the Bank on the date the scheme came to be notified, the Bank has given them waiver only to the extent of Rs. 76,761/-, which was the amount overdue as on 31.12.2007.

(3.) A perusal of clause 4.1 of the scheme as extracted herein above leaves no doubt that only the instalments of an investment loan which was overdue on 31.12.2007 and had remained unpaid until 29.02.2008 constituted the "eligible amount", provided the investment loan has been disbursed upto 31.03.2007. It is also evident from a perusal of clause 5.1 of the scheme that only the eligible amount and not the entire loan amount was to be waived under the scheme. Admittedly the overdue amount as on 31.12.2007 was only Rs. 76,761/- and benefit for the said amount has already been given to the petitioners/complainants. They were not entitled to the waiver of the entire loan amount, which was payable to the Bank on the date the scheme came to be notified. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency on the part of the Bank in rendering services to the petitioners/complainant.