BEFORE THE DISTR7ICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 649 of 2014
Date of Institution: 10.12.2014
Date of Decision: 04.02.2016
Gurpal Singh son of Basant Singh R/o village Mudh Khokhar, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Chairman Cum MD Amritsar Co-operative Bank, Hall Bazar, Amritsar
- The Manager, The Lopoke Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank, Lopoke, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar
- Chief General Manager, NABARD, Sector 34A, Post Box No.7, Chandigarh
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.1: Ex-parte
For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh. A.S. Mann,Advocate
For the opposite party No.3 : Sh.G.S. Randhawa,Advocate
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
- Present complaint has been filed by Gurpal Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein he took a loan from opposite party No.2 on 6.3.2003, 24.3.2003 and 31.3.2003 for Rs. 1,50,000/- for construction of rural godown under Rural Godown Scheme framed by the Govt.of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural and Cooperation. The abovesaid bank has sanctioned and advanced a loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the comdplainant and the complainant has mortgaged his agriculture land with the abovesaid bank. The loan was sanctioned to the complainant bearing bank account No. 10/1. According to the complainant while advancing the loan to the complainant , opposite party No.2 settled terms and conditions that the complainant will pay 67% of the loan amount and 33% will be adjusted against the subsidy granted by the Govt. But in the reply to legal notice opposite party No.2 has replied that the complainant has to pay 75% of the loan amount and 25% will be adjusted against the subsidy. The complainant has made the following payments to opposite party No.2:-
Rs. 25000/- on 19.10.2004
Rs.37000/- on 30.12.2005
Rs.37000/- on 11.12.2006
Rs.35100/- on 14.1.2009
Rs.40000/- on 5.12.2009
As such the complainant made the payment of Rs. 1,74,100/- to opposite party No.2 bank. Complainant has alleged that on 5.12.2009 when the complainant deposited Rs. 40000/- with opposite party No.2, opposite party No.2 told to the complainant that the bank will release 33% subsidy to the complainant and there is no need to make any further payment. Opposite party No.2 now informed the complainant that they had not received capital subsidy from NABARD which infact has to be claimed by opposite party No.2 from the concerned department and the complainant has nothing to do anything except the completion of requisite formalities of the bank. Complainant has alleged that as he has cleared the loan amount to opposite party No.2 and as such he requested the opposite party No.2 to issue no objection certificate, which the opposite party No.2 refused to do so. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to issue no objection certificate. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable against the Chairman cum MD Amritsar Cooperative Bank as the complainant has not taken loan from the Cooperative Bank but has taken loan from the Lopoke Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that complainant made request for taking loan for Godown and the loan was sanctioned to Rs. 1,50,000/- which was given to him in three installments i.e. Rs. 50000/- each on 6.3.2003, 24.3.2003 and 31.3.2003 and as security of loan, complainant mortgaged his land. It was submitted that complainant was to return the amount with interest @ 11.5% p.a p.a. within 10 annual installments of Rs. 24700/- each and in default complainant was liable to pay 2% penal interest. It was specifically told to the complainant that he will pay 75% of the loan amount and 25% will be adjusted against the subsidy, if any granted by the Government (NABARD). The complainant paid Rs. 25000/- on 19.10.2004, Rs. 37000/- on 30.12.2005 and on 28.8.2006 a joint inspection was conducted of the godown of the complainant and some objections were raised by NABARD on 28.6.2006. It was submitted that vide letter dated 5.9.2006 complainant was told that his subsidy is sanctioned subject to the condition mentioned in the objections. It was further submitted that complainant did not remove the abovesaid objections raised by NABARD nor he iinformed the bank and thereafter he paid Rs. 37000/- on 11.12.2006 and at that time he was again told that his subsidy is not sanctioned by the NABARD as he did not remove the objections raised by the NABARD and thereafter he became defaulter in the year 2007 and 2008. Complainant paid Rs. 35100/- on 14.1.2009 which was due in 2008 and he further paid Rs. 40000/- on 5.12.2009 and thereafter he did not pay even a single penny to the bank and he became defaulter and upto 31.3.2014 Rs. 1,04,078/- i.e. Rs. 69000/- principal, Rs. 35078/- interest and he is legally bound to return the said amount . while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Opposite party No.3 in its written version has submitted that Govt. of India, introduced the Gramin Bhandaran Yojna, a Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for construction/renovation/expansion of rural godowns. The Ministry of Agri.Govt. of India is the nodal agency for implementing the scheme through NABARD . NABARD is the pass through agency for release of subsidy. It was submitted that NABARD vide his circular No. 92/ICD-20/2002-03 dated 12.4.2002 wherein it was specified that the sanction and release of subsidy is subject to availability of funds and adherence to the instructions and guidelines issued by Govt.of India from time to time in this regard and the banks were further instructed to stipulate the above conditions in the sanctioned letters issued by them to the borrowers. The Govt. of India formulates scheme and operational guidelines . NABARD merely releases the subsidy to the participating banks. Under the scheme, the subsidy is linked to institutional credit and is released through NABARD for projects, financed by commercial banks, cooperative and regional rural banks and other institutions eligible for refinance from NABARD. It was submitted that circular No. 92/ICD-20/2002-03 dated 12.4.2002 issued by NABARD indicates that the financing bank/institution may sanction loan to those projects which comply to the scheme/operational guidelines of Govt.of India, only are eligible for subsidy. In terms of para 11 of the said circular dated 12.4.2002, the sanction and release of subsidy under the scheme is subject to availability of funds and adherence to the instructions and guidelines issued by Govt.of India from time to time in this regard. The borrower will be eligible for subsidy subject to the completion of the project within stipulated period and compliance of various terms and conditions of the scheme and the guidelines, otherwise the borrower will not be eligible for any subsidy . The complainant has obtained financial assistance from opposite party No.2 i.e. Lopoke Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd for setting up of rural godown. On 28.8.2006 Joint Monitory Committee (JMC) inspected the unit and as per observation of JMC, the godown of 100MT capacity was constructed by the promoter. However, it was reported by JMC that the construction of the godown was not carried out as per the technical parameters envisaged under the scheme on following points :-
- Signboard to be fixed and ventilators are to be covered with wire mess(jali)
- Walls (four side) and roof to be plastered (walls from inside)
- Flooring to be plastered with cement and
- Two small windows on the backside of the godown to be closed.
5. It was submitted that compliance of JMI observation has not been received within the time limit, therefore the claim of subsidy for the project of complainant could not be considered by NABARD. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
6. Complainant tendered into evidence copy of pass book Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12, affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A, receipt of Rs. 35100/- dated 14.1.2009 Ex.C-13, receipt of Rs. 40000/- dated 5.12.2009 Ex.C-14, postal receipt dated 6.6.2014 Ex.C-15, postal receipt dated 6.6.2014 Ex.C-16, photographs Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-19, copy of Annexure Ex.C-20, operation guidelines for rural godown scheme Ex.C-21.
7. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Harvinder Singh, Manager Ex.OP2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/9.
8. Opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit of Smt.Jaswinder Kaur Bedi, District Development Manager Ex.OP3/1, copy of circular No. 92/ICD-2C/2002-3 dated 12.4.2002 Ex.OP3/2, copy of report dated 28.8.2006 Ex.OP3/3, copy of order of Hon’ble National Commission Ex.OP3/4.
9. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
10. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got sanctioned loan from opposite party No.2 in the month of March 2003 amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- and mortgaged his agriculture land with the bank, vide account No. 10/1 as per pass book Ex.C-1. The complainant submitted that opposite party No.2 settled terms and conditions of the loan that the complainant will pay 67% of the loan amount and 33% will be adjusted against the subsidy granted by the Government. However, in the reply to the legal notice, opposite party No.2 has stated that complainant has to pay 75% of the loan amount and 25% will be adjusted against subsidy. The complainant paid through installments a sum of Rs. 1,74,100/-. The opposite party bank has to adjust subsidy towards the remaining loan amount payable by the complainant. Opposite party No.2 has now informed to the complainant that they had not received capital subsidy from NABARD rather opposite party No.2 issued first notice of sale of the property mortgaged by the complainant with opposite party No.2 bank. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that as the complainant has cleared the loan amount and the balance amount is adjustable with the subsidy , but the opposite party No.2 has failed to get the subsidy for the complainant in the aforesaid loan account, so the opposite party is in deficiency of service towards the complainant. The complainant served legal notice dated 6.6.2014 Ex.C-7 through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10. But the opposite party did not issue no due certificate rather opposite party No.2 gave vague reply to the complainant that a joint inspection of the godown of the complainant was conducted and some objections were raised by NABARD on 28.8.2006 and the complainant has failed to remove the said objections. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that no such joint inspection was conducted nor the complainant was asked to remove objections and all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
11. Whereas case of the opposite parties through separate written versions is that Government of India introduced Gramin Bhandaran Yojna, a Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for construction/renovation/expansion of rural godowns , Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India is the nodal agency for implementing the scheme through NABARD and NCDC. NABARD is the pass through agency for release of subsidy and it was specifically mentioned in the scheme that the sanction and release of subsidy is subject to availability of funds and adherence to the instructions and guidelines issued by Govt.of India from time to time and the banks were instructed to stipulate the said conditions in the sanction letters issued by them to the borrowers. The subsidy is to be provided by the Govt.of India and NABARD is merely an agency. The subsidy is linked to institutional credit and is released through NABARD for projects financed by commercial banks, cooperative and regional rural banks and other institutions eligible for refinance from NABARD. In this regard circular No.92/ICD-20/2002-03 dated 12.4.2002 Ex.C-20 was issued by NABARD to the financing bank/institution. In para 11 of the said circular Ex.C-20 it has been specifically notified that the sanction/release of subsidy under the scheme is subject to availability of funds and adherence to the instructions and guidelines issued by the Govt.of India from time to time in this regard. The complainant has obtained financial assistance from opposite party No.2 bank for setting up of rural godowns. Joint Monitory Committee (hereinafter to be called JMC) had inspected the unit on 28.8.2006 . As per the report of JMC Ex.OP2/2 the godown of 100MT capacity was constructed by the promoter/complainant but the same was not carried out as per the technical parameters envisaged under the scheme. The complainant was directed to comply the JMI observations within the time limit i.e. upto 14.12.2006 which was further extended upto 2.2.2007, but the complainant did not comply with the said directions/observations of JMI. So the claim of subsidy of the project of complainant could not be considered by NABARD. Not only this the complainant became defaulter in the year 2007 and 2008. He paid Rs. 35,100/- on 14.1.2009 which was due in 2008 and he further paid Rs. 40000/- on 5.12.2009. Thereafter he did not pay even a single penny to opposite party No.2 bank and he became defaulter . Upto 31.3.2014 Rs. 1,04,078/- (Rs. 69000/- principal and Rs. 35,078/- interest) was found payable by the complainant to opposite party No.2. So the complainant is not entitled to any subsidy. Ld.counsel for opposite party further submitted that claim of subsidy does not fall within the definition of services/commodity. Subsidy offered to be paid is not service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, so the complainant also does not fall within the definition of consumer. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
12. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant obtained loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from opposite party No.2 bank in March 2003 for construction of godown in the rural area under Gramin Bhandaran Yojna, a Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme of Govt.of India which is based on the instructions issued by NABARD vide circular No. 92/ICD-20/2002-3 dated 12.4.2002 Ex.C-20 . As per para 11 of this circular, it has been specifically mentioned that the sanction and release of subsidy under the scheme is subject to availability of funds and adherence to the instructions and guidelines issued by Govt.of India from time to time in this regard. On 28.6.2006 Joint Monitory Committee (JMC) inspected the unit and submitted their report Ex.OP2/2 /OP3/3 and observed that the construction of the godown was not carried out as per the technical parameters envisaged under the scheme on the following points :-
(a) Signboard to be fixed and ventilators are to be covered with wire mess(jali)
(b) Walls (four side) and roof to be plastered (walls from inside)
(c ) Flooring to be plastered with cement and
(d ) Two small windows on the backside of the godown to be closed.
13. The complainant was directed to comply with the JMI observations within the time limit i.e. upto 14.12.2006 which was later on extended upto 2.2.2007. But the complainant failed to comply with the observations/directions given by JMI, as such the subsidy case for the project of complainant could not be considered by NABARD and the Govt.of India. Even thereafter the complainant became defaulter in the year 2007-08 . No doubt he paid some amount in the year 2009 but thereafter he did not pay any single penny to opposite party No.2 bank and upto 31.3.2014 a sum of Rs. 1,04,078/- was outstanding payable by the complainant to opposite party No.2 bank. The opposite party was justified in not issuing no due certificate to the complainant.
14. The plea of the complainant that he paid entire amount except subsidy amount which was to be adjusted by opposite party No.2 bank towards the loan amount due payable by the complainant to opposite party No.2 bank but the opposite parties have failed to provide subsidy amount to the complainant so the complainant is not at fault, is not tenable because subsidy cannot be claimed as a matter of right . Moreover, it has been clearly mentioned in the circular Ex.C-20 para 11 that release of subsidy under the scheme is subject to availability of funds and adherence to the instructions and guidelines issued by Govt.of India from time to time in this regard. The complainant has not complied with the instructions/directions given by JMI in this report Ex.OP2/2 and Ex.OP3/3 and thereafter the complainant became defaulter. It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and Anr. Revision Petition No.4894 of 2012 decided on 8.2.2013 that the subsidy offered to be paid is not service as defined in Consumer Protection Act, as such the Petitioner/complainant is not a consumer.
15. The entire claim of the complainant in this case is based on the amount of subsidy offered to be paid by Govt.of India through NABARD, which is not a service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid ruling.
16. Consequently we hold that complainant is not consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. As such the present complaint is not maintainable. It is, therefore, ordered that complaint be returned to the complainant being not maintainable. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
4.02.2016 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member
