Case No. 152/2022   

IN THE MATTER OF

M/s Lakskya Concasts Pvt.Ltd. Registred office Arya Nagar 3^rd Avantika phase II /kishanpur, Distt. Aligarh through Director Girraj Kumar Maheshwari

                                           V/s

Bank of Baroda, Sasni Gate Branch Aligarh through authorized officer

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for following reliefs:-

1. Op be directed to reimburse the complainant by making payment Rs.3000000 as compensation on account of not releasing the subsidy in favor of the complainant under the CLCS scheme. 
2. Op be directed to pay compensation Rs. 100000 for harassment and litigation expenses Rs.25000.

2. Complainant has stated that it is a company registered in the name and style of M/s Lakshya Concastes Pvt. Ltd. which was earlier registered as M/s  Rukmani Ferro Pvt. Ltd. Company’s factory is located at village Dharra for manufacturing of MS ingot by engaging the family members and some workmen for earning livelihood of the family members belonging to the company. Op is a nationalized Bank and offers a wide range of banking products and financial services to the corporates and retail customers through variety of channels and its specialized subsidiaries in the areas of investment banking. Op provided the financial assistance to the company of the term loan to the tune of Rs. 414 and cash credit limit of Rs.250Lakh against the collateral securities. As per guidelines issued on April 20, 2006 on credit linked capital subsidy (CLCS) scheme by the government, the scheme aims at facilitating technology operations by providing 15% upfront capital subsidy to small scale industries units on institutional finance availed of by them for induction of well-established and improved technologies by providing said financial assistance by the op to the complainant and agreement was executed between the complainant and Ops for subsiding under the CLCS scheme for technology up gradation of the small scale industries. For executing the said element, government appointed OP as a nodal agency for channelizing the scheme and permitting the subsidy on the term loan sanctioned by the bank to the beneficiary. Complainant Company being the small scale industry was entitled to avail of the subsidy from the op bank and executed the agreement dated 25.8.2010 for channelizing the subsidy. Complainant had requested the Op for providing the subsidy to the extent of Rs.1500000 for setting up a project under small scale industry. OP bank had agreed to release the amount in proportion of the investment made or to be made in the purchase of machineries. Complainant submitted a list of main plant and machinery for installation of small scale industry. Complainant had submitted all reports and relevant application for registration as SSI with the District Industry Centre Aligarh and the registration certificate dated 7.11.2011 was issued. Complainant sent several letters to the OP for the claim of subsidy under the CLCS scheme and on the request of the complainant, op sent a letter dated 24.4.2012 to the head office of the bank for releasing the subsidy. Complainant continuously approached the bank through various letters for the claim of the subsidy under the CLCS scheme. OP bank instead of releasing the subsidy under the CLCS scheme proceeded against the complainant in an illegal and arbitrary manner to declare the account as NPA. Complainant approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 . Complainant had complied with all terms and conditions of the scheme and submitted all reports and papers to the op to communicate the head office but the op had intentionally and knowingly delayed communication with the head office for releasing the subsidy under the CLCS Scheme and failed to discharge its obligation and is therefore liable to compensate the complainant for breach of contract in lieu of the subsidy to be granted under the CLCS Scheme. Complainant was entitled to get the subsidy to the extent of 1500000 and complainant was deprived from availing of the benefits of the subsidy on account of acts of commissions and omissions of the OP whereby complainant suffered a loss of not only of the amount of subsidy Rs. 1500000 but also of the benefits arising out of the said amount which may be assessed at Rs. 1500000 and thus complainant has suffered total loss Rs.3000000. OP is liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss amounting Rs. 3000000.                               
3. Op stated in WS that the OP had provided the commercial loan by way of financial assistance to the tune of the Rs.414 Lakh as term loan at Rs.250 Lakh as cash credit loan. The subsidy is the sole discretion of the Ministry of the SSI and ARI Government of India .Complainant was not SSI unit on the date of application and obtained the status of SSI on 7.11.2011. OP had send the application dated 24.4.2012 to the concerned department and requested to release the subsidy. As per norms of RBI account was shifted to NPA category. OP promptly send the application to head office to put up with concerned ministry of MSME government of India. The relationship between the parties false within the ambit of commercial transaction. Complainant is not consumer. The concerned authority had returned the subsidy claim proposal with the observation that the cut off date for the same was over.       
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Op has also filed affidavit and papers in support of their pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. It has been stated by the complainant that it had complied with all terms and conditions of the scheme and submitted all the reports and papers to the Op bank to communicate the head office but the op bank had intentionally and knowingly delayed communication with the head office. Op has submitted that the application was forwarded to the competent authority having completed all formalities as per scheme but the ministry of MSME returned the subsidy proposal with the observation that the cut off  date  was over. It is evident from the record that the complainant company obtained the status of SSI on 7.11.2012. Complainant has stated that the application form dated 25.8.2010 was submitted with the op for subsidy under the CLCS Scheme and complainant has also stated that it had continuously approached the bank through various letters. OP has stated that subsidy claim was returned by the ministry of MSME with the observation that the cut off date was over . It clearly indicate the acts of commission and omission and negligence on the part of op bank in forwarding the claim to the competent authority  with delay whereby complainant had suffered loss to the tune of Rs.3000000 and the interest to be accrued on the amount. Op is liable to reimburse the same.
8. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.
9. The second question of consideration before us is whether the District commission is competent to hear and decide the case?
10. It has been deposed on behalf of the complainant that the Complainant Company is the manufacturing factory where the family members of the Company and some workmen are engaged for earning livelihood of natural persons belonging to the company. Thus the complainant is beyond the ambit of commercial area and is within the definition of consumer in view of explanation provided to section 2 (7) (ii) of the Act, 2019.
11. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.
12.  We hereby direct the Ops to reimburse the complainant for the amount Rs.3000000 with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum and also to pay Rs.50000 as compensation for harassment and Rs.25000 as litigation expenses.
13. Op shall comply with the direction within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
14. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.