BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.108/2018

DATED ON THIS THE 8^th August, 2019

      Present:   1) Sri. C.V.Maragoor

B.Com., L.L.M., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.           

                                        B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri C.V.MARAGOOR,

President

1.       This complaint is filed by Sri Sheshadraiah S/o Srirangaiah resident of Mysuru to direct the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Thilak Nagar Branch, Mysuru and the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Retail Asset Hub, Mysuru to refund a sum of Rs.2,18,309/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and damages for causing trauma and mental agony.
2.      The complainant had moved an application to the opposite party No.1 for sanction of housing loan on 28.02.2015 under Rajiv Rinn Yojna – LIG for constructing the residential house.  The opposite party No.2 has sanctioned loan vide memorandum dated 31.03.2015 a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and the repayment spread over for 228 months with equated monthly installments of Rs.5,970/-.  After submitting formalities in relation to the housing loan, the opposite party No.1 has disbursed the loan amount to the S.B. account of complainant maintained in its branch on 13.04.2015.
3.       It is the case of complainant that under the above scheme, the complainant was entitled to subsidy but in spite of repeated requests by the complainant, the opposite party No.1 did not perform their obligation till 29.07.2017.  The claim forwarded by the opposite parties came to be rejected by Nodal officer of the scheme as it is time barred claim.  The delay in forwarding claim for subsidy by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service consequently, the complainant has been subjected to mental torture and financial loss.  Hence, this complaint.
4.       The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 after the service of notice, appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version admitting that they have sanctioned loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant under Rajiv Rinn Yojna scheme for construction of house.  The Rajiv Rinn Yojna scheme was introduced by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India to provide home loan with Central Government interest subsidy of EWS/LIG persons for acquisition/ construction of house to such beneficiary who does not own a house in his/her name etc.,  The complainant did not furnish house completion certificate in spite of repeated requests made by the bank.  Lastly the bank has sent its approved valuer for verification of the house constructed by the complainant then it came to know that the complainant by violating the conditions of the plan constructed house and using portion of the house for commercial purpose.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence, asked to dismiss the complaint.
5.     The complainant filed his affidavit and produced four documents in support of his case.  On the same line, one Ravikumar S/o M.Munirangaiah, Senior Manager of opposite party No.2 filed affidavit and produced four documents. 
6.       We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the complainant and opposite parties in addition to written brief submitted by them and the  points that would arise for determination are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves that the act of opposite parties not forwarding subsidy claim to the concerned authority on time amounts to deficiency in service
2. Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the affirmative;

Point No.2 :- In the affirmative for the below;

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.         Point Nos.1 and 2:- The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite parties have forwarded subsidy claim to the Nodal officer after expiry of the scheme as such, the complainant could not get interest subsidy as per Rajiv Rinn Yojna.  The learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that the complainant has not provided house completion certificate in spite of their repeated requests as he has constructed the building by violation of the conditions of plan.  The opposite parties have not disputed sanction of loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant for construction of house under Rajiv Rinn Yojna – LIG.  The complainant has produced sanction memorandum dated 31.03.2015 issued by opposite party No.2 to him. The complainant further produced copy of letter dated 01.12.2017 issued by National Housing Bank to the opposite party No.1 wherein it is stated that the captioned scheme means Rajiv Rinn Yojna for housing loan was operational w.e.f. 01.10.2013 to 16.04.2015 and implemented by the National Housing Bank on behalf of Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.  They have received the letter from opposite party No.1 dated 19.10.2017 requesting for release of interest subsidy amount of Rs.2,18,309/- for one beneficiary under the captioned scheme.  As Canara Bank did not execute memorandum of undertaking with National Housing Bank for implementation of the scheme during the operational period of this scheme as such, we regret to inform that the claim submitted by your institution shall not be eligible.  The contents of above letter speaks that the opposite parties after expiry of the period of scheme i.e. 16.04.2015 has forwarded subsidy claim of the complainant i.e. six months after expiry of the scheme.  The opposite party bank have produced letter dated 18.06.2015 addressed to the Nodal Officer, Rajiv Rinn Yojna for sanction of interest subsidy for the loan sanctioned to the complainant a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-.  The letter addressed by the opposite party bank is after expiry of operational period i.e. 16.04.2015.  By seeing the opposite party No.1 letter dated 18.06.2015 addressed to the Nodal Officer for sanction of interest subsidy and reply given by the National Housing Bank dated 31.12.2017 are sufficient to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in forwarding the subsidy application.  The opposite parties have forwarded the subsidy application on 18.06.2015 after expiry of the scheme i.e. 16.04.2015.
9.         The opposite parties have attacked the complainant that he failed to provide completion certificate for submitting to the Nodal Officer for sanction of subsidy.  The opposite parties have produced scheme synopsis contained nine pages and it is nowhere mentioned that the financial institution or banks shall submit completion certificate along with subsidy application.  It is mentioned in the synopsis that if the loan has been sanctioned by the bank or financial institution, the persons eligible for construction of house who belonging to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Low Income Group (LIG) entitled for subsidy.  The bank or financial institutions immediately after sanction and disbursement of the loan shall forward subsidy application within the operational period i.e. from 2013 to 16.04.2015.  The opposite parties have not produced single document to show that they have demanded the complainant to furnish completion certificate issued by Corporation. To cover their negligence, the opposite parties have voluntarily appointed approved valuer after filing this complaint and got report from the approved valuer dated 25.04.2018.  The approved valuer stated that permission granted for construction of residential building, but provision made for commercial purpose and commercial activities is going on.  The learned counsel for the complainant replied that for non-sanction of interest subsidy of Rs.2,18,309/- he could not complete the construction and to repay the loan amount with interest as such he made provision in the ground floor to run a beauty parlour by his wife.  The photos produced by the opposite parties show that in the ground floor the complainant has made provision for running beauty parlour or any petti commercial business. It is not mentioned in the synopsis of the Rajiv Rinn Yojna that complainant shall provide completion certificate for sanction of interest subsidy.  As already observed that the complainant was compelled to make provision for commercial purpose when the opposite parties have failed to get sanction of subsidy by forwarding claim application within the scheme period. 
10.       The opposite parties to cover their negligence have got report from their approved valuer after filing the complaint in the month of April 2018. The said report is not coming to the help of opposite parties towards their defence.  The opposite parties have failed to forward the subsidy claim application within the expiry of scheme i.e. on or before 16.04.2015 as such, their delayed claim dated 18.06.2015 has been rejected by Nodal Officer.  Therefore, the opposite parties shall liable to reimburse the interest subsidy of Rs.2,18,309/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. The complainant has not asked specific amount of damages as such he is not entitled for damages by way of compensation.  On the contrary interest has been awarded on the subsidy amount.  Accordingly,   we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by Sheshadraiah is allowed directing the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,18,309/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 16.04.2015 till payment.
2. It is further ordered that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally liable to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant  within 45 days from the date of order. Otherwise, it carries interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realization.  
3. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 8^th August, 2019)