Orissa

Cuttak

CC/67/2024

Arun Kumar Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Self

21 Jun 2024

ORDER

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

      C.C.No.67/2024

Mr. Arun Kumar Behera,

S/o: Ashok Kumar Behera,

                  At:Beleswar,Nayabazar,

                     Cuttack,Odisha,Pin-753004.                                     ...Complainant

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        The Branch Manager,

Canara Bank,Nayabazar Chhak,

Nayabazar S.O,Cuttack,Odisha,

                   Pin-753004

 

2.       The Managing Director,                                             

Canara Bank,Secretariat,

Head Office,112,J.C.Road,Bangalore,

                   Pin-560002.                                                      ...Opp.Parties

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    23.02.2024

Date of Order:  21.06.2024

 

For the complainant:             Self.

For the O.Ps               :            Mr. A.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had availed housing loan of Rs.35,00,000/- under PMAY(MIGH) scheme for purchasing a residential flat bearing no.506 at 5^th floor of 885.55 Sft.  constructed over Plot No.1388 under Khatano.88 with an area of Ac.0.998 dec, named and styled as Mahadev Heights which is developed by M/s. Mahadev Griha Nirmana Pvt. Ltd at Mouza;Cuttack Sahar, unit 29, Chauliaganj, Dist:Cuttack, and the project cost was of Rs.44,94,500/-.  The loan taken by the complainant was eligible for an interest subsidy @ 3% for MIG-II beneficiaries for a period of 20 years or till tenure of the loan whichever is lower and it will be credited upfront to the loan account.   The interest subsidy calculated at Net present value @ discounted rate of 9.0% and the same will be credited on receipt of the same from National Housing Bank which is the Central Nodal agency under the scheme.  According to the complainant, the O.P bank was to claim for the subsidy from Central Govt. Nodal Agency i.e., the National Housing Bank after disbursement of loan and it will be credited upfront to the loan accounts resulting in reduced Housing loan amount and E.M.Is.  Thus, it is the duty of the branch to revise the EMIs within permitted repayment period without opting for restructuring upon receipt and crediting the interest subsidy in full to loan account.  The period of claiming subsidy amount was valid from 1.1.2017 to 31.3.2021 as per the subsidy scheme.  The complainant could know from the account statement that the O.P Bank had claimed subsidy only upon Rs.100/- for which Rs.19/- has been received as subsidy on 18.5.2021.  The complainant could further notice that the O.P has not claimed the subsidy within the period for which the complainant is deprived of all the services available to him under the said subsidy scheme.  The complainant has sent a mail to the O.P as to why they had not claimed for a considerable amount as on the date of claim.  After repeated reminders, O.Ps had informed the complainant that the claim of PMAY subsidy was made on 31.5.2021 which is beyond the stipulated period of subsidy scheme but has not made it clear that there was no claim made for the sizeable loan amount of the complainant.  It is for the said reason, the complainant has come up with his case before this Commission seeking direction to the O.Ps to pay him Rs.2,30,000/-  as compensation for violation of consumer rights and further to pay Rs.1,20,000/- towards his mental harassment and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested their case and have filed their written version jointly.  According to the written version of the O.Ps, the case of the complainant is barred by law of limitation, bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.  The O.Ps admit about the time period of claiming subsidy which was effective from 1.1.17 to 31.3.21.  They also admit to have claimed subsidy of Rs.100/- for which a sum of Rs.19/- was received towards the subsidy on 18.5.2021.    The O.Ps had claimed for the loan before the National Housing Bank as per the guidelines of PMAY and accordingly National Housing Bank had issued product no.630 in favour of the complainant which is reflected in the statement of accounts.  The O.Ps has claimed subsidy amount before the National Housing Bank after disbursing the loan within the stipulated time period had informed the complainant in regular manner.  According to the O.Ps, the refund of the subsidy amount is not their responsibility but it is the National Housing Bank who is to release the subsidy as per the PMAY guidelines.  The O.P had given several reminders to the National Housing Bank regarding the subsidy amount of the complainant but the National Housing Bank had remained silent till the O.Ps had filed their written version before this Commission.  Complainant had not opted to entangle the National Housing Bank in this case who is a necessary party to this case.  Accordingly, the O.Ps through their written version have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed against them since because they are in no way responsible as alleged by the complainant.

 The O.Ps alongwith their written version have filed copies of several documents in order to support their stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

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

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, written version, written notes of submissions as filed from both sides as well as the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant had availed a housing loan from the O.Ps Bank to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- in the PMAY(MIG-II) scheme.  It is also a fact that the complainant is eligible for the interest subsidy @ 3% for MIG-II house for a period of 20 years or till tenure of the loan whichever is lower.  The said amount is to be credited upfront to the loan account.  According to the complainant, it is the O.P Bank who was to make such subsidy claim before National Housing Bank and without doing so within the stipulated period, the O.P bank had only applied for subsidy for Rs.100/- for which Rs.19/- was only credited as subsidy within the stipulated period.  Per contra, the O.Ps through their written version have stated that it is the duty of the National Housing Bank to credit the subsidy amount in the account of the loanee and it is not the duty of the O.Ps.  According to them, they had sent several e-mails to the National Housing Bank in order to enable the complainant receive his entitled subsidy amount.  They have filed Annexure-2 to that effect.  The complainant has filed Annexure-4 which is a mail sent to the O.Ps justifying that he had not received the subsidy as per the scheme. The O.Ps in reply to the said mail of the complainant dated 23.3.2022 had replied through their mail dated 20.7.2022 that they had claimed for the subsidy of the complainant before the National Housing Bank and the same is yet to be delivered to him .  Be that as it may, the complainant has not filed any document or copy of the said scheme in order to apprise this Commission that infact the subsidy amount as per the scheme upon which the interest is to be claimed by the O.P bank and is to be credited to his account.  The complainant has not filed the PMAY scheme documents.  The O.Ps Bank has urged that it is not their duty to claim for the subsidy amount of the complainant, rather, it is the duty of the National Housing Bank to credit the subsidy in the account of the complainant.  In absence of any documentary evidence, this Commission cannot simply jump into a conclusion basing upon certain conjectures and surmises and upon the oral claim of the complainant to that effect.  Accordingly, this Commission do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as made by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest against O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 21^st day of June,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                     

                                                                                 

                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                                                                                                   

 

                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                             Member