Haryana

Ambala

CC/143/2017

Trilochan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Suksham Aggarwal

31 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 143 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 17.05.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 31.12.2018

 

Trilochan Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh VPO Kesari Tehsil Barara District      Ambala, Haryana.

……. Complainant.

 

1. Allahabad Bank through Branch Manager, Branch: Nicholson Road, Porkhadas Chachra, Sons Building, Ambala Cantt.
2. Allahabad Bank through Regional Manager, Zonal Office IInd Floor, Sector 17 B Chandigarh.

….…. Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

 

Present:       Ms.Suksham Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.S.K.Mehta, Advocate for OPs.

ORDER

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the Op No.1 had sanctioned a limit for setting up poly house to the tune of Rs.76 lakhs and initially a loan of Rs.93 lakhs was sanctioned but when the area for setting up of poly house got reduced, therefore, loan of Rs.76 lakh was approved. The poly house was to be installed as per government scheme through National Horticulture Board (NHB) with a offer of 50% subsidy in order promote farmers and landlords. The OPs opened a loan account bearing No.50297543808 in the name of complainant under the head Rural TL-other Agril. In the month of January, 2015 the company came in contact with M/s Pioneer Agro Tech and informed that as per scheme 50% of the loan amount disbursed to complainant for the purpose of setting up of poly house would be refunded to his account as subsidy after completing the formalities by the bank. Vide letter dated 23.07.2016 the National Horticulture Board requested the op No.1 for submitting the required documents for subsidy claim followed by letter dated 19.08.2016 but it failed to submit the required documents which makes it negligent and deficiency in duties. The crop inspection was done on 29.06.2016 after a marginal delay suffered due to negligence on account of Op No.1. Since the phase of the crop had finished, therefore, it had dried up, therefore, NHB had rejected the subsidy claim on the present crop vide letter dated 31.08.2016. The OPs-Bank were to submit the final subsidy claim in a prescribed format to the NHB and a joint inspection team was supposed to conduct a joint inspection of the project to settle the final subsidy claim and the claim was to be determined on the basis of joint inspection team but due to negligence of the OP No.1the NHB did not release the subsidy to complainant and also charged the interest on full loan amount even for the period of default which could have been reduced to half by means of subsidy. The complainant got served legal notice upon the OPs but to no avail. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.

2.                          On notice Ops appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The OPs have already submitted the entire documents to the National Horticulture Board as supplied by the complainant within stipulated period.  There is no delay on the part of OPs rather the complainant has failed to perform his duties and he cannot take the benefit of his own wrongs by way of this complaint.  The Ops are entitled to recover the interest on the loan amount as it had performed the duties as per the norms of the bank. Other contentions have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit Annexure RA and document Annexure R1.

 4.               We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

5.                 It is admitted fact that the complainant has availed a CC limit of Rs. 76 lakh in the month of September 2015, from the opposite party Bank by mortgaging his land for purpose of setting up a Poly House in his land under Government of India Scheme “Development of Commercial Horticulture through production and Post Harvest Management” of National Horticulture Board and abovesaid Board provided the subsidy of upto 50% upon the loan amount.

6.                It is admitted facts and complainant has completed the work of the setting up the Poly House and project was completed in view of the Joint Inspection Team and recommended the subsidy 50 per cent of Rs. 37.775 lakh against eligible project cost of Rs. 75.55 lakh which is evident from the joint committee report dated 29.06.2016 which was prepared by the officials of the Bank as well as official of the NHB same has been place on the file by the complainant and same was not disputed by the opposite parties. It is also admitted fact complainant is entitled for the benefit under the abovesaid scheme as per the record available on the file as well as pleading of the opposite parties. As per the term and condition of the guideline of the subsidy claim is to be got processed by the Ops through National Horticulture Board which is evident as per the Annexure C2 (guideline for making the subsidy claim as under the head i.e procedure was submission of documents/papers for estimated subsidy claim to the Board)       i. Upon release of at least 50% amount of term loan by Bank to promoter, the concerned FI/Bank which has provided credit for the project shall submit subsidy claim to NHB in prescribed Format II-A as under:-

To respective State Office of NHB-up to the project cost of Rs.50.00lakh.

To NHB,HQ,Gurgaon where the project cost is above Rs.50.00 lakh.  

ii.       Committee of NHB will consider proposal of FI/Bank for release of estimated subsidy and NHB would release 100% estimated subsidy to the concerned bank/FI as per prevailing cost norms in eligible cases approved by the committee.

iii.      The subsidy would be kept frozen by bank/FI in the Subsidy Fund Account (SRFA) of the Bank.

iv.      Release of estimated subsidy will not exceed the limit of sanctioned term loan by FI/bank for the project.

7.                The stand of the Op is that they had sent the claim file to the NHB well within time but concerned Department NHB has not processed the same which is beyond the control of the Ops. Perusal of the file the Op has placed on record only one document i.e photocopy of the Postal Receipt Annexure R-1 with regard to the correspondence made with NHB but there is no other evidence on the file.

8.                Admittedly, Op is banking institution and it is supposed and presumed that correspondence is being made in the Black and White against the proper serial Number/Reference Number along with date and Office copy of the same is kept by the Bank for further correspondence purpose and for ready reference after entering the same in their daily diary dispatch register. The postal receipt does not prove the same related to the claim of the complainant if had been done so then certainly Ops must have place on record the copy of correspondence being made by them with NHB. It might be possible the postal receipt belong to the some other entitled customers under the scheme. It is burden duty of the Op made sincere efforts to take effective measures for released of the subsidy amount as per the guidelines, but Ops failed to do so. The Ops have filed an evasive reply in this case as per the settle law, if any party give any evasive reply without disclosing with the specific facts and circumstances in that eventuality the said written statement is to be treated as admission on the part of the said party. Even otherwise complainant is also consumer of the Op and the Bank has deducted the processing charges which are clear from the statement account Annexure C-1 and complainant has raised his claim being a consumer but having no direct relationship with the said agency NHB. The opposite party Bank was well-versed with the norms and guideline Government of India floated through National Horticulture Board as per Annexure C-2 which clearly mentioned that condition pre-necessary for clearing the subsidy claim of the complainant. The ops have failed to send the claim documents in spite of the correspondence made by the NHB vide Annexure C-3 and C-4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case It is established on the file that OPs are negligent toward there duty & are deficient in service. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be accepted same is hereby partly allowed with costs which is assessed to Rs.10,000/- and the Ops are directed not to charge any interest over subsidy of 50%  loan amount i.e 37.775 lakh for the period from June 2016 to till date by charging any interest, simple or compound over the above said subsidy amount. Ops are directed to complied with this order with in thirty days from receipt of copy of the order and order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 31.12.2018                                                                                    

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)           (D.N.ARORA)

                                              Member                                         President