DATE OF FILING: 19.12.2012.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 17.12.2016.
Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in banking service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the sole proprietor of Maa Kalua Rice Mill and running this mill for earning her livelihood since 1995 having valid license No. 21811909095. For upgradation of the said unit the complainant approached O.P.No.1, a public sector bank doing its commercial business at Berhampur for financial assistance since it is a subsidiary Bank of State Bank of India which is acting as a nodal agency for implementing Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS). After due verification of small scale industrial unit of the complainant the O.P.No.1 was pleased to advance a capital loan for upgradation of the unit to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakh) only under the scheme. The loan was sanctioned vide Account No.62170090113 Product-BR-TL-RICE MILL PLUS-CONV on 24.11.2010. After availing the said term loan for Rs.45 lakh the complainant purchased different machinery equipments from respective suppliers for upgradation of her mill. The total cost of said equipment was Rs.29,94,700/- only without misutilision of a single pie. After installation of the said equipments the unit started well functioning with good production and it was informed to the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 after their physical checking and verification all the detail equipments was satisfied since the equipments were purchased and installed in conformity with the approved technology as per the guideline prescribed by the Govt. of India under the Capital Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme. Accordingly on 20.10.2011 an agreement was made between the complainant on one part and the O.P.No.1 on another part for drawing subsidy under Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS) for technology upgradation of the small scale industries. After fully utilizing the term loan the complainant is prompt in running its business and paying the due loan with interest to the O.P.No.1 and has recorded nil liability. As and when the complainant was doing her query about the realization of subsidy the O.P.No.1 was not giving any satisfactory reply. As a result to know about her present status the complainant asked for a printed statement on 29.10.2012 of his loan account from which he came to know about nonrelease of the subsidy. So she complained before the O.P.No.1 on 31.10.2012 for immediate release of eligible subsidy and to adjust the same in her loan account No. 62170090113. But the O.P.N o.1 remained silent. Being aggrieved with this unlawful act of O.P.No.1 the complainant issued a legal notice on 19.11.2012. After that on 28.11.2012 the O.P.No.1 issued a letter declining the subsidy application of the complainant. Showing the reason that due to delayed submission of application by their regional office at Delhi i.e. O.P.No.2 before SIDBI i.e. O.P.No.3. But the said reply letter was received by the complainant on 8.12.2012. Due to this type of irresponsible dealing of the O.P.No.1&2 the complainant has suffered a lot which caused heavy financial loss to her. Although the O.P.No.3 is appointed by the Govt. of India for channelizing the CLCSS for technology upgradation of small scale industries, and the O.P.No.1 & 2 are consigned with the responsibility of claiming the capital subsidy on the term loan sanctioned and disbursed by them, they have not performed their duty as per the consignment. It is not only the objective of the scheme but also the main objective in the agreement made between the complainant on one part and O.P.No.1 on other part. Due to the aforesaid negligence in transmitting the application proposed for release of eligible subsidy by the O.P.No.1 and 2 they are liable to compensate the complainant for their deficiency in service. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to compensate the eligible subsidy amount of Rs.4,49,205/- alongwith the up-to-date interest by adjusting the same to the loan account No.62170090113 and compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards suffering from mental agony and litigation expenses in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P.No.1 & 2 filed version/written argument jointly through their advocates. It is stated that this case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the loan was granted to the complainant is for a commercial purpose and the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. As per the request of the complainant the O.P.No.1 has been pleased to advance a loan of Rs.45,00.000/- vide Account No.62170090113 and the said loan was sanctioned for purchase of different machineries, equipments for upgradation of her mill. The above loan was sanctioned to the complainant for a commercial purpose for opening of her Rice Mill. On the loan sanction order there is no such agreement for payment of subsidy for the loan amount. However, as per the request of the complainant on 20.10.2011 an agreement was made between the complainant and O.P.No.1 for drawing subsidy under Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme for technology upgradation of the Small Scale Industries and as per his request the application was sent to the concerned authority for payment of the subsidy and due to some postal delay it was not received in time by the O.P.No.3 i.e. SIDBI and it was rejected. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the O.P.No.1 & 2 as alleged by the complainant. The scheme Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme is not a service and hence the applicant is not entitled to get any relief under the Consumer Protection Act. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the above case. Hence O.P.No.1 & 2 prayed to dismiss the case with costs in the interest of justice.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.3 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the complaint is entirely misconceived, baseless and untenable in law, facts, and circumstances of the case and is liable to be dismissed with costs. This O.P. is not in receipt of the CLCSS subsidy claim relating to the complainant’s unit M/s Maa Kulua Rice Mill and Traders through State Bank of Hyderabad and the complainant is to put strict proof of this allegation against this O.P. This Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the allegation and the alleged dispute involved in the complaint in as much as it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The loan sanctioned in her favour by O.P.No.1 & 2 is governed by Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme, i.e. CLCSS, as such accordingly on 20.10.2011 an agreement was made between the complainant of one part and O.P.No.1 of another part of drawing subsidy under the said scheme admittedly this O.P. is not a party to the said agreement, hence this O.P. is not liable to pay Rs.4,49,205/- to the complainant or the amount of Rs.30,000/- claimed by the complainant. The complainant at para 5 of her complaint clearly stated “….For the aforesaid act of negligence and deficiency in service the O.P.Nos 1 & 2 are jointly liable to compensate the eligible subsidy amount of Rs.4,49,205/- alongwith accrued interest since the date of agreement till its realization vide the loan account in addition to the above they are also liable to compensate the complainant Rs.20,000/- for her sufferings from mental agony and to pay the litigation expenses for Rs.10,000/- “. Thus the complainant has not claimed any relief against this O.P. Hence the O.P.No.3 prayed to dismiss the case.
5. On the date of hearing of consumer dispute, we have gone through the complaint petition, version of O.Ps 1,2 and 3 written argument of complainant and O.P.No.1&2 and documents of complainant available in the record. We have gone through the whole record, it is found that several opportunities were given to the O.P.No.3 for filing written argument but he has not complied the order of the Forum dated 14.5.2014 up to 14.9.2016. On the date of hearing learned advocate for complainant participated in the hearing. The time petition filed by O.P.No.1 and 2 is rejected by this Forum. Therefore the Forum on dated 14.9.2016 decided to dispose of the case as per merits Under Section 13 (2) ( c ) of C.P.Act, 1986. The complainant filed affidavit in support of her case that she is sole proprietor and running Maa Kalua Rice Mill for earning her livelihood since 1995 having valid license No. 21011909095. For upgradation of the said unit the complainant approached O.P.No.1 a public sector bank doing its commercial business at Berhampur for financial assistance since it is a subsidiary Bank of State Bank of India which is acting as a nodal agency, for implementing Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS). The complainant has installed the Mill for earning her livelihood. She availed the loan from O.P.No.1 and 2 for technology upgradation under a special scheme of Government of India i.e. CLCSS. The O.P.No.1 sanctioned the loan and collected interest for the service rendered by them. Again O.P.No.1 has been agreed to claim the subsidy from O.P.No.3 and it is a part of his service. On the contrary due to their negligence by not transmitting the claim application to O.P.No.3 the subsidy could not be released. She presented for proposal application and it was accepted by O.P.No.1 with satisfaction. After due verification of her small scale industry the O.P.No.1 was pleased to advance a capital loan to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakh) only under the scheme for upgradation of the unit. The loan was sanctioned on 24.11.2010 vide account No. 62170090113. There is no dispute with regard to sanction and disbursement of loan to the complainant. This is sufficed to hold that bank is a service provider and the complainant is a person who has hired banking service. Therefore the complainant is a consumer. The relations between borrower and the bank is that of a consumer and service provider. The complainant is a consumer with the definition of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. The loan amount was to be used by the borrower for technology upgradation of small scale industries for rice mill. The borrower was to spend the loan amount on the project of rice, Rice Bran and Broken rice. The Rice Mill project is a village industry activity. The Government of India was to provide financial assistance to the women, SC, ST, Physically handicapped, Ex-serviceman to start the village industry activity by way of livelihood. The borrower a women who opted for the scheme and borrowed money from the bank. The loan amount was not directly used to generate profit or gain. Therefore it is wrong to hold that the complainant obtained loan for commercial purpose. Small agriculturist personally works in the field to earn livelihood. Under the circumstances it can not be said that the complainant borrowed money for commercial purpose. On 20.10.2011 an agreement was made between the complainant and O.P.No.1 for drawing subsidy under CLCSS for technology upgradation of the small scale industry. She has been making repayment of the loan with due interest in time and has recorded nil liability. When complainant was asking about the release of her subsidy, the O.P.No.1 was not giving any satisfactory reply. She complained before the O.P.No.1 on dated 31.10.2012 vide Annexure III for immediate release of the subsidy and to adjust the same with the loan amount. It is seen from the letter No. F/MSME/115/957 dated 25.9.2012 of Deputy General Manager, Government Scheme Cell SIDBI, Lucknow, to the Branch Manager, Sate Bank of Hyderabad , Berhampur Branch that she has received the application of CLCSS on dated 21.9.2012 for which the SIDBI was not accepted application received after the cut of date i.e. 31.3.2012 . Accordingly the claim of the complainant was not accepted by the Office of the D.C. (MSME) for sanction of the subsidy. It also reveals from the version filed by the O.P.No.3 that O.P.No.1 & 2 are responsible for such delay in sending the application to O.P.No.3 for sanction of the subsidy. All the Branch offices should have knowledge about central funding and deposit of fund in the nodal bank. The O.P.No.1 and 2 did not submit application of CLCSS of the complainant to the O.P.No.3. This is the serious deficiency on the part of the O.P.No.1 & 2. For their fault the complainant lost the amount of Rs.4,49,205.00(Rupees Four lakh Forty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Five )only. She is a genuine claimant and she is entitled to receive the subsidy amount from O.P.No.1 & 2. The O.P.No.3 is free from all the liabilities.
In the result, the complaint case is allowed against O.P.No.1 & 2. We direct the O.P.No.1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay the subsidy amount of Rs.4,49,205.00 ( Rupees Four Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Five) only to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the awarded amount carries an interest @ 6% per annum till final payment of the awarded amount is realized. We also allowed a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only towards cost of litigation which is to be paid by the O.P.No.1 & 2 jointly during the same period. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 17th December 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and be sent to the server
