KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK Vs. MALLAPA NINGAPPA PARAPPANAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, being aggrieved of the concurrent findings of the foras below against them has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that respondent no.1 filed a consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the petitioner claiming himself to be a small farmer. It is alleged that complainant took a short term crop loan of Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner bank on 14.07.2005. Unfortunately, due to heavy rains the corn crop of the respondent was damaged. The petitioner bank issued notice dated 10.02.2007 to the respondent no.1 calling upon him to pay the loan amount and the interest. The complainant on 15.10.2007 paid interest amount of Rs.4640/- only and requested the petitioner to extend the time of payment of his loan. It is alleged that bank officials accepted the payment of interest and obtained signatures of the complainant on various blank forms which has been to mis-utilized to show discharge of debt of Rs.20,000/- on 15.10.2007 and sanction of new loan of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the respondent. According to the complainant, the petitioner bank has indulged in this exercise with a view to deprive the respondent of benefit of "Agricultural Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme" announced by the Government of Karnataka in the year 2008. It is alleged that since respondent no.1 had taken a loan of Rs.20,000/- on 14.07.2005 which remained unpaid, the respondent no.1 is entitled to waiver of his debt under the scheme announced by the Government. Claiming the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner to be deficiency in service, respondent no.1 filed a complaint.

(3.) The petitioner in the written submissions version took the plea that on 15.10.2007, respondent no.1 cleared his loan alongwith interest and obtained fresh loan of Rs.20,000/- which was sanctioned on 15.10.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that since respondent no.1 had taken a new loan on 15.10.2007, he is not covered the debt waiver policy / scheme of the Government.