Orissa

Cuttak

CC/228/2022

Srinibasa Acharya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

A K Behera

23 May 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.228/2022

 

Srinibas Acharya,

S/O:Sanat Acharya,

Resident of:NiladriVihar,P.O:Nayabazar,

P.S:Chauliaganj,Town/Dist:Cuttack.                    ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

  1. Branch Manager,

Bank of India,Biju Patnaik Park Branch,

                             Sector-10,Judges Colony,CDA,Cuttack

 

  1. The Regional Manager,,Bank of India,

At:Nayapalli,NH-4,Near Iskon Temple,

IRC Vilalge,Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khorda-751015.

 

  1. General Manager,

District Industries Centre,At/PO/PS:Madhupatna,

                    Dist: Cuttack-753010

 

  1. Regional Director,

Khadi &Village Industries Commission,

               At-Gandamunda,Sundarpada,

​            Bhubaneswar,Dist-Khurda-751020                                     … Opp. Parties

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     04.11.2022

Date of Order:    23.05.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. A.K.Behera,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                 :          None.

 

Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.                                                                                                       

The case of the complainant in short is that the O.P no.4 had sponsored a scheme i.e.Prime ministers Employment Generation Programme in short PMEGP for the unemployed youth.  The complainant is a Diploma holder in Cinematography and B.A and was unemployed for which he had applied for a loan for the year 2016-2017 to the O.P no.3 under the PMEGP scheme, which is a subsidy linked scheme.Under the scheme, the O.P no.3 sponsored the name of the complainant to avail the loan through the O.P no.1 & 2.   It is the further case of the complainant is that he was sanctioned loan amount of Rs.5,71,000/- but the O.P no.1 disbursed him only Rs.3,75,000/- on 31.5.2017 without issuing any loan sanctioned letter.  So, he could not know about due date of E.M.I.  It is also stated by the complainant that as per the PMEGP scheme, a subsidy amount of Rs.77,500/- was released by the O.P no.3 on 12.9.17 in his favour as against the disbursed amount of Rs.3,75,000/- which was deposited in his account maintained with the O.P bank.  The guideline of PMEGP scheme provides that once the margin money (subsidy) is released in favour of the loanee it should be kept in the term deposit for three years in the name of the beneficiary without interest and for such three years no interest would be charged from the beneficiary on the loan account against such subsidy account.  Sub-clause-4 of that guideline provides that subsidy amount would be credited to the account of the loanee after three years from the date of first disbursement of the loan.  But the account statement of the bank reveals that subsidy amount of Rs.77,500/- was not credited to his loan account, which should have been done in the month of May,2020.  So also the bank also charged interest on the subsidy amount which reveals unfair trade practice on the part of the bank.  The complainant has stated that he was paying the instalments from 16.8.17 till 3.3.20 although he was not aware about  the due date of the E.M.I.  The bank without crediting the total amount of subsidy, credited a sum, of Rs.21,500/- only on 29.5.18 and Rs.22,070/- on 19.12.20.  It is alleged by the complainant that deduction from the subsidy money prior to three years is illegal and arbitrary. The O.P no.1 without intimating the complainant had restructured his loan account.  The complainant had approached the O.P bank number of times to calculate interest on the subsidy amount and other irregularities in sanctioning and disbursing the loan account to him.   But the O.P no.1 did not take any step.  He also had approached to the O.P no.3 alleging irregularities committed by O.P no.1 in this respect.  There the O.P no.3 also had instructed the O.P no.1 to settle the accounts of the complainant as per the PMEGP guidelines but the O.P no.1 did not take any steps in that matter. Lastly, the complainant issued legal notice on 24.2.22 to all the O.Ps for redressal of his grievances but nobody has taken any steps in that respect.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case for a direction to the O.P no.1 to rectify the irregularities in his Loan A/c, provide loan sanction letter alongwith up-to-date Accounts statement as well as to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony as he had committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice.

          The complainant has filed copies of some documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Having not contested this case, the O.Ps have been set exparte.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

                      i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.           Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  and if they had practised any unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Point no.ii.

Out of the three points, point no.ii being the most pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

The bank statement reveals that the loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant under subsidy linked scheme.  The complainant has filed the letter dt.25.10.21,issued by the O.P no.3 to the complainant as well as to the bank(O.P.No.1).  The said letter reveals that the complainant was sanctioned loan amount of Rs.5,17000/- under the Prime ministers Employment Generation Programme in short PMEGP in the year 2016-2017and out of the sanctioned loan amount, the complainant was only disbursed Rs.3,75,000/-.  The account statement filed by the complainantalso reveals that the complainant was disbursed loan amount of Rs.3,75,000/-.  The letter of O.P no.3 further reveals that under the PMEGP scheme, the complainant was entitled to receive subsidy amount of Rs.75,500/-, which was released on 12.9.17 in favour of the complainant.  The letter of the O.P no.3 speaks  that the bank has committed irregularities in disbursing the loan amount as well as subsidy amount in favour of the complainant.  So the O.P no.3 had advised the bank to follow the guidelines of PMEGP guidelines and settle the account statement of the complainant accordingly.It is understood from the complaint petition as well as the letter issued by the O.P no.3 that the O.P no.1 without following PMEGP guidelines has prepared the Accounts Statement.  The O.Ps 1 & 2 have not filed their written version. Hence, the averments made in the complaint petition are deemed to be true. The PMEGP scheme guidelines as filed by the complainant revealsthat the  subsidy amount would be kept in the shape of term deposit in the name of beneficiary for three years in the bank and no interest would be charged by the bank on the said amount against the loanee and the said amount would be credited to the Loan A/c of the loanee after three years of disbursement of loan.  The accounts statement reveals that the O.Ps no.1 & 2 have acted contrary to the guideline of PMEGP and have prepared the accounts statement.  The complainant had approached the O.Ps number of times for rectification ofAccounts statement and disbursement of balance sanctioned loan amount.  But the O.Ps no.1 & 2 neither rectified the Accounts statement nor disbursed rest loan amount.  Lastly, the complainant had sent the legal notice to all the O.Ps alleging whimsical preparation of accounts statement and non-disbursement of entire loan amount by the O.Ps no.1 & 2, but the said notice remained unanswered.   In view of the above, it is held that O.Ps no.1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service as well as have practised unfair trade practice in disbursing the loan amount to the complainant as well as calculating the interest on the subsidy amount.

Points no.i& iii.

  The complainant has not prayed any relief against the O.Ps no.3 & 4. Hence, no relief is granted against them.  The O.Ps 1 & 2 did not disburse the total sanctioned loan amount for which the complainant has suffered a lot.  Besides, the O.Ps no.1 & 2 have prepared the accounts statement contrary to the PMEGP scheme guidelines.  In view of the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.Hence, it is so ordered;

 

 

                                    ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps.   The O.Ps no.1 & 2 are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case. The O.Ps no.1 & 2 are directed to prepare Accounts statement afresh as per the PMEGP scheme guidelines and furnish the same to the complainant alongwith the loan sanctioned letter and to disburse the rest of the sanctioned loan amount.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment alongwitha sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 23rd day of May,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                                                                             

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member.

 

 

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President.

                                   

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.