BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

FA  534  of 2011   against C.C.  120/2009,  Dist. Forum, Guntur

Between:

Devabhaktuni  Radha Krishna Murthy

S/o. Sambasiva Rao

R/o. Kantamraju Konduru Village

Duggirala Mandal

Guntur District

Now R/o. 6/1, Chandramoulinagar

Guntur.                                                       ***                           Appellant/

  Complainant

                                                                   And

1)  The Branch Manager

Chaitanya Grameena Bank

3^rd Line, Krishna Nagar

Guntur.

2) The Chairman

Head Office

Chaitanya Grameena Bank

Bose Road, Tenali

Guntur Dist.                                                ***                         Respondents/

O.Ps

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s. V. Gourishankara Rao

Counsel for the Respondent:                       M/s.  K. Sridhar Rao

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

                                                                   &

                                            SMT. M.SHREESHA, MEMBER

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President )

***

1)                 Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that   he is a small farmer owning 0.83 cents of agricultural land in Kantamraju Konduru village of Duggirala Mandal in Guntur district.    He availed agricultural gold loan from Op1 bank on 27.12.2006 wherein he was sanctioned Rs. 1, 50,000/-.   Due to adverse climatic conditions he could not repay the loan.   On  9.9.2008  Op1 bank demanded  Rs. 1,74,020/-  alleging that  he owned  7.00 acres of land, and that under  One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS)   he was entitled to benefit of Rs. 41,233/- only.  He was further informed that he had to pay balance of Rs. 1,32,787/-  and the first instalment being Rs. 44,263/- payable on or before 27.9.2008  failing which he would not be entitled  to the benefit.    The bank had erroneously held that he was not a small farmer and that the waiver scheme would not apply.    By virtue of the scheme  the entire outstanding as on  29.2.2008 to a tune of Rs. 1,74,020/-  deemed to have been waived  and was not liable to pay any amount.    He got issued legal notice and also a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman to consider his claim.    The bank raised a plea that he owns 7.00 acres of agricultural land and that he was eligible only for 25% of the waiver.   Without giving any opportunity the case was closed.    On that he filed the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties that he was entitled to the benefits provided under the Agriculture Crop Loan Waiver  Scheme, and consequently that there was no due and return the pledged gold ornaments, damages to a tune of Rs. 25,000/- and costs. 

3)                Op1 bank filed written version resisting the case.   In fact the dispute does not attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.   The complainant while availing gold loan informed that he was cultivating 7.00 acres of land and raising banana crop.    Basing on his statement besides taking into consideration  the gold ornaments pledg