Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the opposite parties the complainant has filed the present complain under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before this Commission.

Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps. The complainant has both the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction for filing the case before this commission. These points are never challenged by the OPs.

It is the case of the complainant that complainant has availed House Building loan from the O.P for purchasing House on 1st February 2017 vide loan account number 9878226 for a sum of Rs. 15, 00, 000/-. (Fifteen Lakh Only) Simultaneously the complainant claim that he is also eligible for subsidy under Pradhanmantri Avas Yojna (Urban) according to the letter no-I-11016/15/2016-HFA-4(Pt)/E-9029212 dated 12/06/2018 of the ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. It is further case of the complainant that all the procedure in this regard has been carried out on13/11/2017. After waiting for a long period the complainant lodged complaint on 11/05/2020 to the O.Ps for expediting the processes for availing credit linked subsidy form the ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.  Thereafter further inquiry for getting subsidy was made by the complainant. Complainant made several correspondences with the OPs along with the NHB, RBI, MoH, National consumer helpline, Ombudsmen for NBFCs etc. At last when the subsidy was not granted to complainant and therefore for such deficiency in service of the O.Ps the complainant has filed Consumer Complaint against the O.Ps before this District Commission on 11/01/2022 by making the following prayer.

• A direction to the O.Ps to expedite the process for availing credit linked subsidy scheme (CLSS) for the middle income group under PMAY (urban).

• A direction to the O.Ps to make payment of sum of rupees 3, 00,000/- (Three lakh only) only to your complainant on account of mental pain, agony and continuous harassment.

• A direction to the opposite party to make payment of a sum of rupees 50000/-(Fifty thousand only) only to the complainant on account of litigation cost.

Total compensation claimed by the compliment is rupees 350 000(Three lakh Fifty thousand only) any further relief as this learned Commission deems just and proper for the ends of Justice.

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs has designated the National Housing Bank (NHB), Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO), and State Bank of India (SBI) as central nodal agencies (CNAs). These agencies are responsible for tracking the progress and channelizing the subsidy to the borrower through financial institutions. An applicant has to apply to the lender for availing subsidy on a housing loan under the PMAY scheme. As soon as the loan is sanctioned, the lender checks if the borrower fulfils the eligibility criteria and then applies for the subsidy to one of the CNAs. Once the claim request for the subsidy from a lender is received, earmarked funds as per the applicant’s eligibility are released directly to the applicant’s loan account. For every loan application submitted to central nodal agencies, a corresponding application ID is assigned that can be used to track the PMAY status online.

The O.P. No. 1&2 has entered appearance by filing Written Version thereafter O.P. No. 1&2 also files written notes of argument and also took part in hearing of argument wherein it has been mentioned that the case is not maintainable on various points of law. O.P. No. 1&2 also submits the following

1. The case is not been solved due to mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.

2. The complainant is not a consumer.

 3. The complaint is barred by limitation.

 4. Subsidy doesn’t fall under the purview of C.P. Act. 

The OPs submitted that every time after receiving e-mail from the complainant they made communication with the complainant. After receiving proper documents from the complainant they expedite the process for availing credit linked subsidy scheme (CLSS) for the middle income group under PMAY (urban) on behalf of the complainant.

On 08/12/2022 we fix the case for filing BNA and hearing of argument. Both parties are present on that day. In support of argument ld. Adv. for the O.Ps has submitted following judgments in her synopsis.

• The chief manager and others versus Smt.Hema Agarwal and another before the Siliguri circuit bench of West Bengal State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Siliguri in first appeal number A/ 42/202.
• National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) versus Ajit Devghariya in first appeal number FA/ 198/2014before SCDRC, Kolkata.
• Chaudhari Ashok Yadav versus Rewari Central Cooperative Bank and others in revision petition number 4894 of 2012 before National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi.

At the time of argument the complainant files a document seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This RTI Application submitted to National Housing Bank (NHB) on 28-10-2022 by the complainant and RTI Response No- NHB/ND/RTI/ELE 0835/2022-23 dated November 24, 2022 from Shri V.Vaideswaran,Executive Director,National Housing Bank,Core 5A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road,New Delhi - 110 003,011-39187000,faa_rhanhborg.in which reflect that Shri Ronit Kumar Jha, complainant sought the following information from the above mentioned officer of NHB.

Information Sought by the complainant.

1. Action taken report on CLAP application id: C0002735417.

2 How much time it will take PMAY-CLSS

3. What is the procedure to change the mobile no. for CLAP application ID status?

 4. Copies of file nothings/ note sheet/correspondence/ documents related to action taken/ any other information or document pertaining the processing of the application be also provided.

The concerned department gave response to the RTI application which is provided below.

Information Provided

1, 2 and 4.

Status as on 24-11-2022:

• Based on search made with the Application Id as provided, subsidy claim of Rs.1,49,535 Was found uploaded under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana - Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (PMAY-CLSS) for EWS/LIG by the Primary Lending Institution (PLI) against Loan Account Number 9878226 on the PMAY-CLS5 portal maintained by NHB on 31-01-2022 and the claim was accepted for processing.
• Release of subsidy depends upon deduplication on the CLSS Awas Portal (CLAP) of the Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) and receipt of additional information/clarification/compliances (including Aadhaar seeding of the respective PLI, if required), availability of fund and subsequent processing of the claim. No specific timeline has been prescribed in the Guidelines. Applicant may track the subsidy claim status using the Application Id through CLAP.
• As per the extant process, the eligible subsidy claims are uploaded record wise by the PLI on the NHB’s PMAY-CLSS portal, after its due diligence. PMAY-CLSS claim processing is done through online portal with dashboard information (includes accepted, queried and rejected records, processing queries, etc.) accessible to respective PLI without print option. Hence, there is no separate claim scrutiny/query/observation report printed.
• Further, through PLI login using its username and password on NHB's PMAY-CLSS Portal, it can see the details of records uploaded processed, released, rejected, queried cases, etc. in the dashboard. Since the information sought requires drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions and giving advice or opinion, the NHB has no information to furnish.

    3. CLAP is managed by the MoHUA. Applicant may contact the PL for the same

Decision with reason

We have gone through the records and other related documents of the case. Form the case record it reflects that the complainant has availed House Building loan from the O.P for purchasing House on 1st February 2017 vide loan account number 9878226. After waiting for a long period the complainant lodged complaint on 11/05/2020 to the O.Ps for expediting the processes for availing credit linked subsidy from the ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.Complainant made several correspondences with the OPs along with the NHB, RBI, MoH, National consumer helpline, Ombudsmen for NBFCs etc. The last correspondence between the complainant and the OPs made on 13/12/2021. Complainant has filed Consumer Complaint against the O.Ps before this District Commission on 31/12/2021. According to RTI reply “Based on search made with the Application Id as provided, subsidy claim of Rs.1, 49,535 Was found uploaded under Pradhan MantriAwas Yojana - Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (PMAY-CLSS) for EWS/LIG by the Primary Lending Institution (PLI) against Loan Account Number 9878226 on the PMAY-CLS5 portal maintained by NHB on 31-01-2022 and the claim was accepted for processing”.

So, it is crystal-clear that the OPs have taken positive initiatives to expedite the process for availing credit linked subsidy scheme (CLSS) for the middle income group under PMAY (urban) on behalf of the complainant. It is the result of the OPs initiatives that the subsidy claim of the complainant was found uploaded under Pradhan MantriAwas Yojana - Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (PMAY-CLSS) for EWS/LIG by the Primary Lending Institution (PLI)/ OPs against Loan Account Number 9878226 on the PMAY-CLS5 portal maintained by NHB on 31-01-2022 and the claim was accepted for processing. To prove negligence by the OPs the complainant must prove all of the "elements." One of the elements is "damages," meaning the complainant must have suffered injuries or loss for the OPs to be held liable. Even if one can prove that the OPs were negligent, they may not be successful in their negligence claim lawsuit if that negligence caused them no harm or loss. We compare the facts, testimony, and evidence in determining whether the following elements were satisfied a) Duty b) Breach of duty c) Cause-in-fact d) Proximate cause e) Damages.etc.  Before uploading the subsidy claim of the complainant by the NHB the OPs (bank) have completed their job. The matter of delay is conferring upon both the parties.   So, there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part

of the O.Ps as alleged by the complainant is arise. We, therefore, find no error made by the OPs in this case.

Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prays for. Complainant is unsuccessful to prove his case against the OPs.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

The complaint case number CC/48/2021 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.