DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated Bolangir the 29th day of June 2016.
C.C.No.40 of 2015.
Jaskaran Agrawal son of late Baruram Agrawal.
At/P.O/P.S- Belpada,Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Branch Manager,SBI,Belpada Branch,
At/P.O/P.S-Belpada,Dist- Bolangir.
2.Regional Manager, SBI, RBO-IVRegional Business Office,
At-Radharanipada,Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S/Dist-Bolangir.
3.Asst.General Manager (NW-II) SBI,Local Office,
At-Jawaharlal Nehuru Marg, Bhubaneswar-1.
4.General Manager (NW-II),SBILocal Office, At-Jawaharlal
Nehuru Marg, Bhubaneswar-1.
5.Chief General Manager,SBI,Local Office,
At-Jawaharlal Nehuru Marg, Bhubaneswar-1.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the complainant- Sri J.K.Sahu & P.R. Bohidar.
Adv. for the Opp.Parties – Sri A.K.Sarangi.
Date of filing of the case- 19.05.2015
Date of order - 29.06.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
1. In the matter of an application u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986,filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties.
2. In brief, the complainant made an application u/s.12 of C.P.Act 1986 stating that he is beneficiary of (PMEGP) Prime minister’s Employment Generation Programme in start up of a Raw Rice Mill. The project costs is Rs 10,00,000/-inclusive to entitlement of subsidy to the tune of 30% of the project cost.
3. The complainant averted a loan of Rs 10,00,000/- was sanctioned under said PMEGP scheme on dt.15.02.2010 and as per the guidelines of said scheme the para 11(ii)(i)- That reads “Once the margin money (subsidy) is released in favour of the loanee, it should be kept in Term Deposit of Three years at Branch level in the name of beneficiary/Institution. No interest will be paid on the TDR and no interest will be charged on loan to the corresponding amount of TDR, which is blatantly violated by opposite parties and defrauded to the tune of Rs 2,08,076/- and even charged interest @ 10.45 % to 14.75% from time to time and also charged interest on the subsidy amount of Rs 3,50,000/- without the obligations adhered to the contract scheme. No complaint on the issue considered although heavily protested in written, no responses made and also made in an unclear, unreasonable, irresponsive way and lastly made a foreclosure of the scheme prior to the stipulated repayment schedule that range from three to seven years in a insisting manner.
4. Also stated, for such commissioning of negligence the cause of action is continuous as the O.Ps have not yet addressed the just grievance of the petitioner. The O.Ps have also committed unfair trade practice by imposing higher interest on loan amount in violation of the provision of PMEGP scheme. Relied on letters in photo copies, calculation of interest sheet, PMEGP guidelines and affidavit. Praying the O.Ps be directed to refund the excess interest amount charged on the petitioner and also compensation for the deliberate negligence deficiency and loss caused to the business with any other relief’s justly deserved.
5. In pursuant to notice, the O.P admittedly submitted, the petitioner has availed a loan of Rs 10,00,000/- under (PMEGP) Prime Minister’s employment Generation Programme for a Rice Mill and entitled to get a subsidy of 35% on the loaned amount accordingly sanctioned Rs 5,00,000/- as Term loan and Rs 5,00,000/- as cash credit.
6. Also admitting as per para 11 (ii)(i) of the PMEGP guidelines, once the margin money released in favour of the loanee, it should be kept in term deposit receipt of three years at Branch level. No interest will be paid on the TDR and no interest will be charged on loan to the corresponding amount of TDR and under para 11 (ii)(m) of the guideline reads, since margin money (subsidy) is to be provided in the form of subsidy, it will be credited to the borrowers loan account after three years from the date of first disbursement to the borrower by the bank.
7. Further stating, the system calculates the interests for entire outstanding and Banks return the excess interest, in later date. The O.P.1 has refunded the excess interest amount to the present petitioner along with other three borrowers as stated earlier.
8. At the time of applying interest, the O.P.No.1 has applied excess interest on the entire limit amount Rs 10,00,000/- without subsidy processing deduction.
9. Averred at the time of calculation of the interest, the O.P.1 has charged interest on Rs 3,50,000/- .So the proportionate interest charged on the subsidy portion is to be deducted and the proportionate calculation totally comes to Rs 1,03,500/- from the entire interest amount refunded Rs 55,288/- to term loan account and Rs 48,212/- to cash credit account respectively.
10. Along with aforesaid submission also contended there is no cause of action in the case, the case is barred by limitation even not maintainable as the petitioner is not a consumer, no deficiency of service, the allegation made is imaginary as the O.P has already refunded the claim of the petitioner.
11. The O.P also made contended submission that the term loan of Rs 5,00,000/- of the petitioner was disbursed in the month of March 2010 but the cash credit of Rs 5,00,000/- was disbursed in the month of April 2011. The bank received the margin money in later date i.e dt.19.03.2010 which should have been kept in TDR till 19.03.2013. Any interest rate applied or fluctuating interest charged as per the guidelines of R.B.I and it is being applied by the system. It is incorrect to say the petitioner has informed the O.P No.1 of the mistake done at their ends. Rather the O.P.No.1 has himself find out the mistake and corrected the same thus no unfair trade practice has been done by the O.P. Relied on letters and refund of interest letter.
12. Heard the learned counsels and relevant materials perused on the record.
13. On the question of maintainability, we observed no specific contention is raised. It is admitted the O.P has refunded the interest charged, which amplifies, the cause of action survives as the issue is disputed and unilaterally solved in post institution of this case, again the limitation follows with the cause of action which is arosed on dt.03.02.2014 in writing of the letter No.Br SL/29/212A. Hence the case is not time barred one, thus maintainable.
14. The other contention raised is that the petitioner is not a consumer and not within the definition as provisioned in the Act. On the same issue, we assume banking is a business transaction and availing the service petitioner is a consumer. Our such view is fortified by the decisions as follows and also relied by the complainant.
- AIR 2006 SC 2810- “Banking is a business transaction between the bank and the customers. Such customers are consumers within section 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P.Act.
- AIR 2007 CAL 230-“Loan disbursed in favour opposite parties by co-operative Bank- Bank asked them to repay loan together with interests as per agreement. Opposite parties became “customer” of Bank and as such were entitled to get service from Bank. Discrepancy in loan amount, Opposite parties who filed complaint before the District Forum has the legal right to file such application”.
- 2001 NCJ (NC) 431- The person after being sanctioned with loan by a Bank is a consumer. In post sanction state, the relationship is between a ‘lender’ and a
‘borrower’. If the bank violates any contract, that will amount to deficiency of service and the borrower is entitled to take resort to C.P.Act.
15. Further to say, the core question relates to violation of PMEGP guidelines and thereof refund of interest changed arbitrarily or not ?
16. The O.P heavily contended the interest charged by the system and the system calculated for the entire outstanding i.e Rs 10,00,000/- without deduction of the 35% subsidy so the petitioner being an aggrieved person and found deficiency for such irresponsible commission of negligence, whereas also the petitioner contended the issue raised by himself that given way to refund of excess interest, but the amount interest charged/collected totally amounts to Rs 2,00,563/- whereas the amount refunded is Rs 1,10,749/- against term loan Account and cash credit Account. on processment of subsidy component is amount to deficiency of service, that concurredly confirm in violation PMEGP guidelines that the bank is under obligation to act. We also observe, the Bank has refunded the excess interest charged, but the calculation sheet placed before this forum, by the petitioner in affidavit speaks the calculation although enunciated on day-to-day product basis however inclusion of TDR in the principal compared is not taken into account, so the interest calculated by the firm M/s. Ashish P Jain & Co (Chartered Accountant) as placed is believable and shows the shortcoming encountered by the banking system is not properly taken into consideration. Thus the bank is payable to the petitioner an amount of Rs 1,04,576/- as per the interest charged on daily product basis ranging 10.45% to 14.75% but returned arbitrarily and suppressedly in calculating @ 6.5% to l7%,which is neither discussed or elaborated or communicated in any intimation. The bank has not communicated the rate of interest that to be charged, even the letter of engagement procured. Through mode of RTI has missed the content, again proof of interest charged arbitrarily, neither governed under RBI guidelines or under scheme obligated principle such suppression is conspicuously vindicated by the petitioner and gross violation of banking code.
17 Further observed, the margin money was received by the bank on 19.03.2010 and that be kept under TDR till 18.03.2013 allowing corresponding amount was to be exempted from interest which was not adhered and admittedly flatly charged till complaint is lodged. In addition to the above said rules, the bank closed the account on dt.31.12.2013, without intimating or not allowing the reasonable time to the entrepreneur to settle the account in due course of time, rather making apprehensive that the scheme is non sustaining so it requires foreclosure in deviation of (PMEGP) guidelines. Such deliberate omissions and commissions in every step by the O.Ps protrudes deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed in violation of consumer Protection Act and banking regulation Act and RBI guidelines.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we considerably come to know, the petitioner suffered a lot and languishes in mental agony from going pillar to post and the refund is also arbitrarily done, which is not satisfying as per the norms of the PMEGP guidelines and consumer Protection Act, thus the O.Ps are liable to pay for the deficient as raised.
Hence ordered;
The case is allowed on contest. The O.Ps are hereby directed to pay the petitioner to the tune of Rs 1,04,576/-(One Lakh four thousand five hundred seventy six) as refund of interest along with an amount of Rs 5,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost, within 30 days of this order, failing which @ 6% per annum interest will accrue on the refund amount from the date of application till realization..
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE’ 2016.
(S.RATH) (G.K.RATH) (P.SAMANTARA)
MEMBER MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
.
