The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, Kalinga Gramya Bank @ Odisha Gramya Bank, Dungura Branch, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the Regional Manager, Odisha Gramya Bank, At- Regional Office, Balasore and O.P No.3 is Shree Govind Tractors, N.H-5, Charampa, Bhadrak.

                    2. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant in order to purchase a Tractor with other equipments under subsidy scheme extended by State Government for agriculture purpose contacted O.P No.1, where the O.P No.1 agreed in principle to sanction the said loan with terms and conditions:- (a) 20% of total cost to deposit as down payment, (b) deposit of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only as security and (c) Mortgage of cultivable land of 4 acres. Accordingly, the Complainant complied the terms and conditions laid down by O.P No.1. The Complainant had submitted a quotation during February, 2009 obtaining from Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., Balasore, where the cost of Swaraj 735 F.E Tractor with all taxes was Rs.4,27,500/- (Rupees Four Lacs twenty seven thousand five hundred) only and Government subsidy was admissible of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) only on production of sanction order (dt.16.02.2009- Annexure-1) and as per direction of O.P No.1, the Complainant obtained another quotation dt.25.05.2009 from O.P No.3, where cost of said Tractor is Rs.4,62,500/- (Rupees Four Lacs sixty two thousand five hundred) only and including other equipments amounts to Rs.6,11,500/- (Rupees Six Lacs eleven thousand five hundred) only (Annexure-2). After sanction of loan by O.P No.1, the O.P No.3 delivered the Tractor and other equipments to the Complainant vide Chalan No.16, dt.19.07.2010, where rate of Tractor and accessories is not disclosed (Annexure-3). The O.P No.3 handed over xerox copy of Policy papers to the Complainant, where total premium of Rs.7,552/- (Rupees Seven Thousand five hundred fifty two) only and insured amount is Rs.5,61,266/- (Rupees Five Lacs Sixty one thousand two hundred sixty six) only (Annexure-4). Xerox copy of Regd. Certificate bearing No.OR-22D-6111 (Tractor) and OR-22D-6112 (Trailer) delivered by O.P No.3 to the Complainant (Annexure-5). Due to non-providing services by OP No.3, the Complainant availed services for maintenance of his tractor in local private workshop, thereby incurred expenses (Annexure-6). Xerox copy of loan passbook No.41340600000131 supplied by O.P No.1, where it is revealed loan amount of Rs.6,62,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs sixty two thousand) only, but as per copy of insurance particulars, total amount is Rs.5,68,818/- (Rupees Five Lacs sixty eight thousand eight hundred eighteen) only, which is one kind of fraud and illegal (Annexure-7). In the mean while, the O.P No.2 has issued one demand notice under Section-13 (2) of SARFAESI Act-2002 to the Complainant on 14.03.2015, where loan amount outstanding is Rs.7,47,180/- (Rupees Seven Lacs forty seven thousand one hundred eighty) only (Annexure-8). Though the Complainant filed an application before Junior Agriculture Officer, Khaira for sanction of subsidy towards his agricultural loan of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) only, but due to late sanction and disbursement of Tractor and equipments to the Complainant at belated stage by the O.P No.1 and2, the Complainant was deprived of admissible subsidy in his above said loan account. The prayer of the Complainant is for compensation for subsidy, servicing with other expenses and towards mental agony with litigation cost with regard to deficiency in Customer service and unfair trade practice.

                    3. Though O.P No.1 and 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate, but did not file their written version within the statutory period and did not appear in the Forum on the date fixed, for which they are set ex-parte. 

                    4. Written statement has been filled by the O.P No.3 through his Advocate, where he has denied on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.3 has submitted that as per request of the Complainant, he has issued a quotation for Swaraj-735 F.E tractor 39 HP and other equipments of Rs.6,11,500/- (Rupees Six Lacs eleven thousand five hundred) only. The O.P No.3 handed over the tractor along with all accessories and relevant documents to the Complainant in time after receiving the cost and has neither given high quotation rate nor has become a barrier to avail Government subsidy by the Complainant. The O.P No.3 has disclosed rate of tractor and accessories in the chalan provided by him, which the Complainant has fabricated otherwise, and also the Complainant with ulterior motive has not intimated this O.P for service of his tractor as per service book rule, but repaired in local private workshop. The O.P No.3 further submitted that he has rightly given the quotation and O.P No.1 has rightly sanctioned the loan to the Complainant and furthermore, the tractor as well as the document along with proper service has been given to the Complainant.  Moreover, the Complainant without proceeding in proper way with regard to avail subsidy of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) only falsely harass the O.Ps, thus he did not produce the document before Junior Agriculture Officer within the time and the loan is not within the such ambity. On the other hand, the Complainant falsely put the burden on this O.P, which is liable to be rejected. So, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice does not arise at all. Though O.P No.3 appeared in this case and filed written statement, he did not participate in hearing of this case.      

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ? 

                    6. In order to substantiate his pleas, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list. The O.P No.1 and 2 are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier and O.P No.3 though filed written version did not participate in hearing and also not filed any document in his support. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that the first quotation submitted by the Complainant to the Bank is Rs.4,27,500/- (Rupees Four Lacs twenty seven thousand five hundred) only was not considered, which was of February, 2009 and subsequently, he submitted another quotation of Rs.6,11,500/- (Rupees Six Lacs eleven thousand five hundred) only, out of which Rs.4,62,500/- (Rupees Four Lacs sixty two thousand five hundred) only was for the Tractor and rest were for other equipments and it was of 25.05.2009. Basing on it, a loan of Rs.6,62,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs sixty two thousand) only at the compensatory rate of interest of 13% per annum in place of agriculture loan interest of 7% per annum. Further, after availing the loan and Tractor, no service provided by the O.P No.3, for which he availed the service of the Tractor from the open market causing much more loss. He also did not get subsidy of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) only as per State Government scheme. So, these are all the deficiency of service by the O.Ps, for which the Complainant has filed this case in this Forum and prayed for subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) only, refund of total servicing with other expenses incurred towards the Tractor of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) only and mental agony with litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only in total Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) only and calculation of loan interest of 7% per annum. So that the first quotation was for the Tractor only and the second quotation was for the Tractor along with other equipments including Trailer. There is no relevant material to show that the Complainant obtained the second quotation from the Bank authority and approached the appropriate Officials of the State Government for obtaining the subsidy amount. There is no subsequent documents are found which shows that the Complainant has approached the O.P No.3 for repair of his alleged Tractor and O.P No.3 refused for it. Furthermore, claiming of 30% loan to 70% loan is the discretion of the Bank Authority. The Complainant has also admitted that he had received the demand notice under Section-13(2) of SARFAESI Act-2002 for repayment of his loan amount of Rs.7,47,180/- (Rupees Seven Lacs forty seven thousand one hundred eighty) only. The Section-13(2) of SARFAESI Act-2002 is reads as follows:-

13. Enforcement of Security Interest-  (1)    ××××××××××××××××

(2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any installment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice, failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled exercise all or any of the rights.

                        So, according to the settled principles of Law, SARFAESI Act is a special Law and hence will override the general Law contained in the RDDBFI Act, 1993. Thus, in our considered view, the Complainant has to approach the appropriate authority when he is for any remedy required.

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of entire materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that this Consumer case is not maintainable in this Forum and the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for, for which this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on ex-parte against O.P No.1 and 2 and on contest against O.P No.3, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 21st day of August, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.