JUDGEMENT

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. Heard. Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of rival parties.
2. The caption Consumer Complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging negligence, deficiency of service & unfair trade practice there on the part of the OPs resulting non release of his entitlement of subsidy for which the complainant suffered financial loss & mental agony.
3. Complainant seeks for the following relief(s): (i) an order directing the Ops to release the subsidy amount with interest immediately in favour of the complainant,(ii) an  order directing the Ops to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-towards  financial loss & mental agony suffered along with cost of this  litigation .And further prayed for all other relief(s) as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Commission. .
4. Brief facts of the complaint are that, the complainant, for his self employment & to earn his lively hood, has availed an Agriculture Term Loan amount of Rs.1,20,000/-with  from the OP 1/Bank vide Loan A/C No. 560931000654142 on dt.31.12.2017  for two units of Diary/cow Farm repayable in 36 monthly installments of Rs.2,778/ with interest @ 10.75 p.a  starting from 01/04/2028 . The loan was obtained   under Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (DEDS), a benevolent scheme of government of India for generating self employment, being implemented by the NABARD/op3. The loan amount of Rs. 40,000/- as first installment was disbursed on 01/01/2018 and, then Rs 30,000/-  on dt.20/04/2018, Rs. 30,000/- on dt. 19/05/2028 i.e total amount disbursed is Rs.1,00,000/- . As per Bank’s norms & guidelines of Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (a benevolent scheme of government of India for self employment of unemployed one) the complainant is entitle to get release of subsidy of Rs.30,000/-. The Complainant starts repayment of loan from   April 2018 to 01/05/2021 amounting to Rs.79,55.68/- and thereafter repays Rs.29,552.45/- on dt. 06/07/2021 i.e repaid total amount of Rs. 1,09,109.16/-. After repayment of  the loan the beneficiary/complainant approached  the Branch Manager/OP 1 to release the accrued subsidy amount of said Rs.30,000/- but it is not yet released .It is further submitted that, the District Veterinary Officer, Kalahandi  has sent the a letter dt. 05/11/2019 to the Branch Manager/ OP1 to release the subsidy to the complainant/loanee under said DEDS of 2017-18 but it is not responded. The complainant /loanee again put forth his grievance to the Branch Manager Union Bank /OP 1 (after amalgamation of Corporation Bank) on dt.07.06.2021 to release the subsidy but no avail which caused financial loss & mental agony to the complainant,It is alleged that, the complainant has suffered non release of his entitlement of subsidy  due to negligence ,deficient service & unfair trade practice of the Ops. Hence this complaint .The averment of the complaint petition is supported by an affidavit of complainant Bibekananda Sahu.
5. To substantiate his stand, the complainant has filed the self attested true copy of the following documents:- (I) Application dt.15/11/2017 for loan under Promotion of Dairy Entrepreneurship Development Scheme(Annexure -1 of complaint petition ),(II) Project report dt.15/11/2017 for establishment of dairy unit of two CB Cows under DEDS. Annexure -2 of complaint petition),(III) Letter vide No 3246 dt.05/11/19 of the office of the CDVO, Kalahandi addressed to the Branch Manager, Corporation Bank/OP 1(Annexure-3 of complaint petition),(IV) Copy of Application for release of Agriculture Loan Subsidy dt.07/06/2021 made to the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India/OP1 (Annexure-4 of complaint petition), (V) Copy of letter dt.15/11/2015 of the office of the CDVO, Kalahandi i.e forwarding of loan application of the complainant under DEDS,( Annexure-5 of complaint petition),(VI) Copy of account statement for the period of 01/01/2018 to 31/05/2021  of A/C No. 560931 000654142 there with the OP 1Bank,(Annexure-6 of complaint petition),(VII) Copy of statement of account dt. 01/06/2021 to 13/07/2021 of A/C No. 560931 000654142 there with the OP 1/ Bank,(Annexure-7 of complaint petition),(VIII) Copy of duly filled up Claim Form from  the controlling office of the Bank for release capital of subsidy of Rs 30,000/- in respect of dairy entrepreneurship development scheme duly signed by Branch Manager the Corporation Bank /OP1 & complainant /beneficiary loanee dt.31.12.2017 (Annexure-8 of complaint petition), and (IX) Copy of Credit Sanction Intimation dt.31.12.3017 (Annexure-9 of complaint petition),
6. Being notice the OPs appeared and filed their respective written version denying the petition allegation of negligence, deficient service & unfair trade practice there on the part of the Ops and on all its material particulars.
7. The OP 1&2/Bank in their written version has admitted the facts that, it has sanction alleged loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on dt. 31/12/2017 under DEDS for the year 2017-18 and the first installment of loan was released on 01/01.2018 and the balance amount was also released in favour of the borrower on subsequent dates. The OP/Bank also admits the fact that, the complainant /Loanee has started repaying of the loan amount. The OP 1& 2 /Bank authority has also admitted the facts of received of an application from the complainant on dt  dt.07/06/2021 for release of subject subsidy upon which he was  told that, the subsidy amount is not yet received from the concern authority for which they are not in a position to credit the same to the account of the complainant .The OP 1&2/Bank submits that, as per the guideline of the scheme, Bank has also lodged the claim Form before the concern authority for release of subsidy within the stipulated period  but the subsidy amount is not yet release by the NABARD and for this reason only the  subsidy is not yet credited to the account of the complainant and that, there is no negligence  or deficient service on the part of Op/Bank and that, there is no cause of action arose for this complaint, this complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation liable to be rejected.
8. To substantiate there stand to OP 1 & 2/Bank has relied on & filed the true copy of Credit Sanction Intimation dt.31.12.3017  (Annexure –a) and Copy of Claim Form from  the controlling office of the Bank for release capital of subsidy(Annexure –b) respectively. 
9. The Op 3 /NABARD filed their written version  challenging the maintainability of this complainant filed against them stating there in that, NABARD is neither  dealing with the complainant/Loanee directly nor  have provided any service for consideration and that, there is no privity of contract between complainant & Op3/NABARD and that, subsidy given by the Govt. of India  in the present case is free financial assistance for which no charge or fees or consideration is paid by the recipient of subsidy or any person and that, there is no relation of “consumer” and “service provider”  between the complainant & op3/NABARD within the meaning of C.P. Act .In its present role NABARD acts as a pass-through agency on behalf of GoI for disbursing subsidy. This essentially entail that, NABARD can only release subsidy based on the guidelines issued by the GoI to NABARD from time to time.  It is further submits that, the OP3/NABARD has not received any claim for subsidy either in the offline mode or online mode on behalf of the complainant from the project sanctioning or financing institution i.e OP1&2 as per the operational guidelines of the DEDS Scheme. The OP3/NABARD has quoted the provision vide Sl.No. 9.2 of the Operational Guideline of the DEDS Scheme for  FY 2017-18 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare as follows:-“All the financial banks shall be required to forward their subsidy claim through their controlling office to the concerned NABARD Regional Office within two month of disbursement of the first installment of the bank loan” and further submits that ,in the present case though the project credit sanction was 31^1st December, 2017 ,the disbursement of first installment of the bank loan was April, 2018 by when the mode of subsidy claim by banks was made online w.e.f FY 2018-2019 through the DEDS ensuring portal where in the details of application was to be uploaded within 30 days of sanction and block the eligible subsidy amount as per Operation Guideline issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare for the year 2018-19. However, the OP 3 has not received any claim for subsidy on behalf of the complainant by the financing bank i.e OP1&2 either in physical mode or through the DEDS Ensuring Portal and that, there is no negligence or deficient service on the part of the OP3/NABARD causing any injuries to the complainant as such complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP3/NABARD.
10. The OP 3/NABARD, to substantiate their pleadings has relies on &  filed the true copy of the Office Circular No.132 along with operational guideline of DEDS Scheme for the FY 2017-18 amongst others addressed to all Scheduled Commercial Bank (Marked Annexure -I of their written version) and the true copy of the Office Circular No.128 along with operational guideline of DEDS Scheme for the FY 2018-19 amongst others addressed to all Scheduled Commercial Bank (Marked Annexure -II of their written version).The averment of the written version is also supported by an affidavit of one Maheswar Das, AGH-DDM NABARD, Kalahandi .
11. The Op 4 represented through the CDVO, Kalahindi has admitted the facts that, the complainant is residing within the jurisdiction of Dist. Veterinary Hospital ,Kalahandi and further admitted that, the complainant had applied for a loan for his  self –employment  in the dairy sector under DEDS & as per guideline of the Central Sector Scheme –,unit cost of two cow was 1,20,000/-  with a provision of subsidy @25% of the project cost i.e Rs 30,000/- as back ended capital subsidy from GoI routed through NABARD/the project implementing agency  to the financing bank through its controlling office. It  was forwarded to the branch Manager Corporation Bank/OP1on dt.15/11/2017 and that, as per the statement of the entrepreneur/ complainant loan amount of Rs 1,00,000/- has been disbursed to him on 19/05/2018 by the Bank/OP 1 under DESD scheme . It is further submits that, the CDVO, Kalahandi has requested the OP1/Bank to release the subsidy under DESD in favour the complainant/loanee entrepreneur Vide Office Letter No.3246 dt.05/11/2019 and that, there is no negligence or deficient service towards complainant committed by the OP 4 and there is nothing caused any injuries to the complainant rather there is no cause of action arose against this answering Op as such OP 4 may be exempted from all liabilities.
12. The OP 4, to substantiate there stand, has filed Self attested true copy of the following documents:-(i) Guideline of DEDS Scheme for implementing during 12^th five year plan, (ii) Letter vide No. 3246 dt.5.11.2019 of the office of the CDVO, Kalahandi, (iii) Forwarding letter of the loan application of the complainant to the Branch Manager Corporation Bank (now Union Bank of India) dt.15.11.2015. (iv) The project report of the complainant for diary unit o f two cows .The averment of the written version is supported by an affidavit of Maheswar Das, AGM-DDM ,NABARD,Kalahandi.
13. During hearing of the case the both parties have lead their evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act
14. The complainant Bibekanda Sahu, to   prove his stand , has filed additional affidavit evidence, the contention of which is corroborating with the averment of the complaint petition, is taken in to consideration.
15.   The Op 1&2 , has  filed  an additional  evidence affidavit of one Santosh Kumar Sahu ,Branch Manager, Union Bank of India ,averment of which are  corroborating with the facts stated there in the writing version of the OP 1&2/Bank is taken in to consideration.
16. The Op 3 has also filed  an additional  evidence affidavit of one  Maheswar Das, AGH-DDM NABARD, Kalahandi, contention of   which are  corroborating with the facts stated there in the writing version of the OP 3 is taken in to consideration.
17. No evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act is filed by the OP 4(four) though takes part in the hearing of this case.
18. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents relied on by both the parties placed in the record, evidence affidavit adduced by both the parties, the points for consideration before this Commission are: - Whether the complainant is a consumer of Ops? Whether this complaint is maintainable before this Commission under C.P.Act? Whether complaint is barred by limitation? Whether there is any negligence & deficiency of service there on the part of the Ops resulting injuries to the complainant? And whether the complainant is entitle for the relief(s) as claimed?
19. Here in this case, it is not disputed that, the complainant for his self employment & to earn his lively hood, has availed an Agriculture Term Loan  from the OP 1/Bank under Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (DEDS), a benevolent scheme of government of India for generating self employment, being implemented by the NABARD/op3.  Thus the complainant is a consumer of the OP 1&2/Bank is proved on admission.
20. This commission also agreed with the submission of the both learned counsels for the OP1&2/ Bank & Op 3/NABARD that, subsidy under a government cannot be claimed as right of the loanee/ complainant. Reliance may placed on the order dt. 10^th October 2022 of the Hon’ble SCDRC, Odisha passed in First Appeal No A/900/2009 and order dt. 08^th February 2013 of the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi passed in Revision Petition No 489 of 2012 placed on record by the learned counsel for the OP 1&2 in this case .As such we are of the opinion that, claim of the complainant for an order directing the Ops to release the subsidy amount with interest immediately in favour of the complainant is not acceptable.
21. However, this Commission is not agreed with the submission of learned counsel for the  OP1&2 / Bank that,  “ it is not the duty of the bank to see whether the subsidy amount was released or not rather the complainant should have taken appropriate steps for release of the same as because the complainant will be benefited out of the same.”
22. On perusal of the provision vide Sl.No. 9.2 of the Operational Guideline of the DEDS Scheme for  FY 2017-18 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare which read as follows :-“All the financial banks shall be required to forward their subsidy claim through their controlling office to the concerned NABARD Regional Office within two month of disbursement of the first installment of the bank loan” , we are of the opinion that ,there is an  obligation cast on the Op1&2/bank to take prompt action to get release of the accrued subsidy payable to the account of the loanee/complainant under DEDS Scheme for  FY 2017-18 .
23. Further on perusal of the undisputed loan account statement vide A/C No. 560931 000654142 for the period of 01/01/2018 to 31/05/2021 there with the OP 1/Bank,(Annexure-6 of complaint petition) and on admission of the OP/Bank it is proved  that, the first installment of the loan was disbursed to the complainant on 01/01/2018. The  undisputed duly filled up Claim Form placed on the record  vide Annexure-8 of complaint petition, clearly shows  that, the complainant is entitled to get release of subsidy amount of Rs 30,000/-(thirty thousand) by crediting the same to his loan account .
24. The OP 1&2/Bank submits that, “as per the guideline of the scheme, Bank has lodged the CLAIM FORM before the concern authority for release of subsidy within the stipulated period  but the subsidy amount is not yet release by the NABARD and for this reason only the  subsidy is not yet credited to the account of the complainant”, on the other hand the OP 3(three) submits contradicting to it that, “the OP3/NABARD has not received any claim for subsidy either in the offline mode or online mode on behalf of the complainant from the project sanctioning or financing institution i.e. OP1&2 as per the operational guidelines of the DEDS Scheme.”
25. Admittedly the complainant /loanee have not received his entitlement of subsidy accrued there under Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme for  FY 2017-18 as such complainant suffered financial loss & mental agony cannot be denied as such he is to be compensated adequately, thus onus shift to the Ops to proved there is nothing negligence or deficient service resulting injuries to the complainant .
26. Nothing cogent has been brought on record by the OP/Bank to support the statement made on affidavit by  Santosh Kumar , the branch manager ,union Bank of India on his official strength. No supportive evidence is placed on record to hold that, the OP 1&2/Bank has ever lodged the claim or have forward the subject subsidy claim through their controlling office to the concerned NABARD Regional Office within stipulated period of two month of disbursement of the first installment of the bank loan as prescribed there under DEDS Scheme for  FY 2017-18.
27.  It is found that , DEDS Scheme for  FY 2017-18 casts a duty upon the OP1/ Bank to take proper steps to get   release of accrued subsidy amount of Rs.30,000/- from the concern authority  to be credited to the loan account of the complainant and accordingly the loan account should be adjusted and there after account statement was to be  prepared to repay the rest amount by the complainant with accrued interest but here the Op1/ Bank has admitted the facts that, accrued subsidy is not yet released and no cogent evidence placed on record to hold that, the OP 1&2/Bank has ever lodged the claim before the concern authority for release of accrued subsidy certainly proved negligence & deficient service on the part of the OP 1/ Bank .
28. The OP 1& 2 /Bank authority has also admitted the facts of received of an application from the complainant on dt  dt.07/06/2021 for release of subject subsidy upon which the complainant was  told that, the subsidy amount is not yet received from the concern authority for which they are not in a position to credit the same to the account of the complainant as such we are of the opinion that, cause of action for this complaint arose on dt.07/06/2021  and it is filed on 28/06/2022 well on time as prescribed under C.P.Act 2019 before this Commission within the territorial jurisdiction of which the complainant is residing . As such the submission ops that, this complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation is hereby rejected.
29. Though, there is no privity of contract between complainant & Op3/NABARD and there is no relation of “consumer” and “service provider” between the complainant and op3/NABARD & Op4/ within the meaning of C.P. Act . However, we are of the opinion that, presence of the Op 3 & 4 is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute raised in this complaint.
30.  In the above facts & circumstances, this Commission is of  the opinion that, the employee of OP 1/ Bank has not performed their  obligation under DEDS Scheme for  FY 2017-18 and has  neglected to take proper steps to get release of accrued subsidy from the concern authority and ultimately the complainant suffer loss of  his entitlement i.e. Rs.30,000/- The OP/ bank has recovered the said subsidy amount i.e. Rs. Rs.30,000/- as loan   with interest @ 10.75 clearly proved unfair trade practice & deficient service on the part of the OP/bank accordingly this Commission is of the opinion  that, the OP 1 & 2/ bank are jointly & severely liable to compensate the complainant by paying  the same amount of Rs.30,000/-with interest @10.75 from 02/04/2018 i.e two month later of  disbursement of first instalment of the subject loan to the complainant and also liable to pay compensation towards financial burden & mental agony suffered along with litigation cost of this complaint . Reliance   may placed on the judgment dt. 12.08.2015 passed by the Honourable National Commission in Punjab National Bank & ANR. Vs. Hari Ram Yadev In Revision Petition No 1923 of 2015 which is also followed while deciding the Revision Petition No 753 of 2018 in Panjab National Bank Vs. Daljeet Singh decided on 19.01.2021 by the Honorable National Commission reported in 2021 NCJ 163(NC) where it is concluded that, bank cannot escape its vicarious liability for the acts of its employee.
31. In the light of above discussion and settled principle of law we are of the considered view that, there is negligence, deficient service & unfair trade practice on the part of the OP 1&2/Bank is proved for which complainant lost his entitlement to get release of accrued subside amount Rs.30,000/- and forced to repay the same with interest  to the OP 1 & 2 Bank certainly caused financial hardship & mental agony to the complainant as such the complainant is entitled to be compensated by the O.P 1/Bank adequately .
32. We are of the opinion that, it shall be proper to pay Rs.30,000/- with interest @10.75 p.a. from 02/04/2018 i.e two month later from the disbursement of first instalment of the subject loan to the complainant .Though, the suffering of mental agony cannot be assessed in money terms ,however an award of minimum Rs.10,000/- may heal the injuries some extent. The complainant has engaged his lawyer to plead his  case as such he is entitle for an award of not less that Rs 10,000 towards  litigation cost but the claim of the complainant  for an order directing the Ops to release the subsidy amount with interest immediately in favour of the complainant is not acceptable.
33. It is seen that the OP1&2/Bank, being responsible institution, is entrusted for proper implementation of Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (DEDS), a benevolent scheme of government of India for generating self employment, has neglected to performed it duty not only caused injuries to the beneficiary loanee /complainant but also discourage the unemployed youth to take benefit of  the noble scheme of the Government of India  resulting frustration of  the very purpose of Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (DEDS),  meant for  generating self employment of  poor unemployed citizen is a matter of  concern as such the Op 1&2/Bank authority is to be punished by awarding with heavy punitive damages not less than 1,00,000/-(one) lakh payable to the State Consumer Welfare Fund, Odisha so  that the Op/Bank  shall not repeat such negligence & deficient service with any other account holder/ beneficiary under DEDS .
34.   It is proved that, the complainant has suffered injuries due to the negligence & deficient service on the part of the OP1/ Bank as such there is sufficient cause to present this complaint.
35. Hence this complaint is allowed in part against the OP 1&2 /Bank and dismissed against other Ops on contest with following orders:-

ORDER

The O.P 1& 2/Bank authority are hereby directed to pay Rs.30,000/- with interest @10.75 p.a. from 02/04/2018 and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony along with  Rs 10,000 towards  litigation cost to the complainant .

And further directed pay punitive damages of Rs 1,00,000/-(one lakh) to the State Consumer Welfare fund, Odisha.

This order is to be complied within four week from the date of received of this order failing which the Op 1&2/Bank  shall be is  liable to pay  interest @18% p.a over the aforesaid awarded  amount  till compliance  of this order.

Dictated and corrected by me.

President 

                                  I   agree.

                                                    Member

Pronounced in open Commission today on this 24^th  April  2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.

Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.