BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 312 of 2017
Date of Institution : 29.11.2017
Date of Decision : 06.03.2019
Shamsher Singh son of Darshan Singh resident of village Pharwai Kalan Prop. M/s Kamal Shergail Farm, Tehsil & Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Andhra Bank Shri Parkash Rattan Complex, Barnala Road, Sirsa through Branch Manager.
- DDM, NABARD, House No.212 Sector 20, HUDA, Sirsa.
- Managing Director, NABARD Plot No.3, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER
MS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………MEMBR
Present: Sh. Lucky Duggal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.L.Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Ms. G.K.Sharma, Advocate for OP Nos. 2 & 3.
ORDER
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant intended to do the business of goat farming; therefore, he approached to OP No.2 who disclosed that if the complainant avails loan facility from its department then 1/3 subsidy would be provided on the loan amount. The complainant as a proprietor M/s Kamal Shergil got opened bank account bearing No.168730100002184 with Op No.1 for obtaining term loan of Rs.15,00,000/- regarding goat farming. The complainant got all the documents prepared as per circular No.141/ICD30/2010 of sponsor scheme of OP No.2. The term loan of Rs.15,00,000/- was approved on 17.02.2012 and the Op No.1 disbursed the said amount in his account. Thereafter, the Op No.2 had to deposit the amount of Rs.5 lac being capital subsidy at fixed time but neither the said amount has been deposited nor the Op No.1 had given interest rebate on the amount of Rs.5 lac. The Op No.1 got recovered an amount of Rs.29,11,620/- including capital subsidy amount from the complainant. The complainant requested the Op Nos. 1 & 2 number of times but all fell on deaf ears and even Op No.3 also did not respond to his written request. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 have embezzled the subsidy amount of the complainant and due to this the complainant has suffered financial loss as well as mental agony. This way, the Ops are deficient in providing service to the complainant. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15.
2. On notice Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, suppression of material facts, maintainability and no consumer dispute is made against the Op No.1 as the complainant had not availed departmental remedy by making any representation. It has been submitted that soon after sanction of loan of the complainant, the Op No.1 had forwarded a request letter to the Zonal Manager, Andhra Bank Chadigarh for lodging subsidy claim with NABARD at Chadnigarh. Consequently, the said subsidy claim was lodged with NABARD. Thereafter, the Zonal Office of Op No.1 has requested in writing for release of Capital subsidy of complainant but till today no subsidy amount has been released by NABARD. It has been further submitted that the complainant is not entitled for any subsidy amount because the loan account of the complainant has remained irregular throughout from the very beginning. He had closed the loan account on 26.04.2017 at a premature stage i.e. before time. It has been further submitted that the complainant had been entitled for the subsidy if his account had been regular and had not been closed pre-mature and it appears that the complainant had availed loan only to get subsidy amount. Other contents have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
OPs Nos.2 & 3 in their joint reply have taken preliminary objections such as suppression of material facts, maintainability, locus standi and the present matter does not come within the definition of consumer disputes. It is denied that the complainant had ever approached the Op No.2 and it had allured/assured the complainant. It has been submitted that the complainant has failed to apply for subsidy amount with the replying Ops through proper channel by presenting the due form through the controlling office. The complainant has no right to direct approach the replying Ops rather only the concerned bank has to reply for the same through controlling office with the regional office of NABARD. Other contents made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.R1/D and documents Ex.R1/A to Ex.R1/C.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has contented that it is proved case of the complainant the complainant has availed term loan of Rs.15,00,000/- for goat farming from Op NO.1 and it was admitted by the Op No.1 that after the disbursement of the loan, complainant will be entitled to get 1/3 of the loan amount i.e. Rs.5 lac as subsidy but despite repeated requests letters till date the Ops have not released the subsidy due to the reasons best known to them. It has been further contended that the Op No.2 and 3 are avoiding to make the payment of subsidy amount on one or the other reasons.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the Op No.1 has contended that the subsidy was to be released by Op Nos.2 & 3 and the Op No.1 had submitted the required papers including the claim form to their Zonal Office who have further submitted the same to Op Nos.2 & 3 for release of the subsidy and it also made correspondence with the Zonal Office and further correspondence of the Zonal Office with the OP Nos. 2 & 3 but the Op Nos. 2 & 3 have not released the subsidy. It has been also contended that as the account of the complainant was not regular from the very beginning and it was NPA and as a result of which, the complainant was not entitled for subsidy as per guidelines of the NABARD.
6. Learned counsel for the Op Nos.2 & 3 has strongly contended that the complainant is not a consumer as the release of subsidy is not a service provided to the consumer like complainant. Furthermore, the account of the complainant was not regular and the account of complainant was NPA which makes the complainant disentitled to get any subsidy as prayed for. It has been also contended that the complainant has not submitted his application within time to the OP Nos. 2 & 3 through OP No.1 despite number of letters written by Op Nos. 2 & 3 and the application submitted by the complainant through Zonal Office of the bank was clearly time barred and the complainant is not entitled for any amount of subsidy. Learned counsel for the Op Nos. 2 & 3 has relied upon judgment titled as Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. The Rewari Central Cooperative Bank decided by Hon’ble National Commission in RP No.4894 of 2012 wherein it was observed that the complainant is not a consumer as subsidy offer to be paid is not a service.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record carefully. The perusal of case file reveals that the complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.CW1A, wherein all the facts mentioned in the complaints, have been reiterated and has tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15. On the other hand, the Op No.1 has produced affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, General Manager Ex.RW1/A, reiterating the pleas taken in the reply and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.RC. The Op Nos.2 & 3 have produced affidavit of Mohender Singh Ex.RW1/D and deposed as per the stand taken in the reply to the compliant and documents Ex.R1/E to Ex.R1/L.
8. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has availed loan of Rs.15 lac from the op No.1 for goat farming and he has applied for the release of subsidy by the NABARD. As per the version of the complainant, he had applied the subsidy through the Op No.1 who has further submitted the papers to the Zonal Office for onward transmission to the OP Nos. 2 & 3 and it was legal obligation of the Op No.1 to submit the requisite papers with the NABARD. As per the version of the OP No.1, bank they have submitted the requisite papers for subsidy to their Zonal office who have further submitted the same to NABARD for release of subsidy but however, OP Nos. 2 & 3 have taken specific plea that they have neither received the papers for applying subsidy within time nor the application was submitted by the complainant on the requisite claim form. It is undisputed fact that the loan account of the complainant was irregular and was made NPA by the Op No.1 due to not regular paying the installments of loan. The perusal of the Ex.R1/A reveals that as per clause No.9.2 All the financing banks shall be required to forward their subsidy claims through their controlling office to the concerned NABARD Regional Office within two months of disbursement of first installment of the bank loan. As per clause No.11.2 of this document The Subsidy shall be released on first come first serve basis subject to availability of funds allocated to the States/UTs. As per clause 15.3 Repayment schedules shall be drawn on the total bank loan taken in a manner that the subsidy amount is adjusted after liquidation of the net bank loan (excluding subsidy). As per Clause 16.01 Capital subsidy will be back ended (adjusted against last few installments of repayment of the bank loan) with a minimum lock-in period of 3 years, and shall be refunded if the account becomes a Non-Performing Account (NPA).
9. So, it is apparently clear from Ex.RW1/A that in case of NPA the loanee is not entitled for any disbursement of the subsidy amount and furthermore the application for grant of subsidy was submitted to the bank who forwarded through their Zonal Office but the complainant has failed to prove this fact that the application of the complainant for subsidy was forwarded by the Zonal Office of the bank within a period of two months. However, we find force that the subsidy offered to be paid is not a service as was observed by Hon’ble National Commission in judgment titled asChaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. The Rewari Central Cooperative Bank (supra).
10. In view of our above discussion, we found that the complainant is not a consumer and even the complaint is also not maintainable. Accordingly, we dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own coss. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:06.03.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
