Haryana

Karnal

CC/358/2020

Rajwanti - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

V.B. Bhatti

07 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.358 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.10.09.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:07.06.2024

 

Rajwanti wife of Ramesh Chand, resident of village Labkari, tehsil Indri and District Karnal, age 63 years, UID no.3736 5051 1975.

 

                                                                   …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Canara Bank, 90,91 Mahila Ashram Complex, behind old Bus Stand, Karnal through its Agriculture Finance Manager.
2. The Managing Director, National Horticulture Board, plot no.85, Sector 18,Institutional Area, Gurgaon, 122015 (Haryana).

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri V.B. Bhatti, counsel  for the complainant.

                    Shri S.S. Bhalla, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Apaar Singh Bedi, counsel for OP no.2.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that Central Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Horticulture, launched a scheme to provide the high tech technology to interested farmers for drawing their produce/agriculture yield in the Protected Cultivation Net House in the year 2014. A board was constituted by Central Government to implement the said scheme in the name and style of “National Horticulture Board,” through Ministry of Agriculture and Horticulture, having its head Quarter at Gurgaon (Gurugram). According to the scheme, National Horticulture Board has nexus with every bank and financial institution in India and the banks and financial institutions started working for implementation of the said scheme by advertising the benefits of the scheme and availing subsidy on large scale. The officials of the OP no.1 started contacting the farmers and started giving the green pasture to the farmers. The complainant is a very respectable person of locality and having sufficient land. The official of the OP no.1 met the complainant and persuaded him to adopt the latest high tech technology. The bank officials also told the complainant that according to the scheme of the government he will be provided subsidy at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq. meter.  The complainant has shown her interest after hearing the benefits of the scheme i.e. subsidy which was to be provided to the farmers. The official of the OP no.1 had also assured the complainant to sanction the bank loan for installation of the Protected Cultivation Net House. The proposal was framed by the OP no.1 to the effect that the Protected Cultivation Net House will be installed in the land measuring 4000 sq. meters because as per scheme the subsidy will only be provided if the costs of the project exceeds Rs.50 lacs. It is the duty of the bank to get released the subsidy from the OP no.2 and the bank officials had also assured the complainant that the subsidy will be deducted from the term loan, meaning thereby the subsidy will be excluded than the term loan. On the allurement of the OP no.1 complainant is ready for installation of the Protected Cultivation Net House. Consequently, OP no.1 directed the complainant to apply for loan and updated quotation was also collected by the bank for installation of the Protected Cultivation Net House only from National Agro Farm, having its office at SCO-129, first floor, sector-25, Panchkula (Haryana), whereas according to the norms and procedure three quotation must be collected from the various interested parties. The project report of the complainant was prepared by the OP no.1 from the National Agro Farm on its own and obtained the projected report from the said agency showing the costs of the project as Rs.54,90,000/- and prepared the total area under cultivation for the project in 4000 sq. meters, the project was ultimately completed by the National Agro Farm. OP no.1 prepared the office note including proposal for installing the project and to sanction the loan for the project. The OP no.1 has shown in its proposal according to the delegation’s power no.268/14, vide which the Senior Manager VLB has proposed the loan amount of Rs.11,30,000/-after deducting subsidy amount of Rs.28 lakhs, meaning thereby the subsidy was to be collected by the OP no.1 from the OP no.2 on their own and the total loan sanctioned was only Rs.11,30,000/-. But lateron the OP no.1 has cleverly shown the loan to be Rs.39,30,000/- including subsidy and Rs.15,60,000/- has been shown as margin money which was invested by the OP no.1 from the complainant in cash. Thereafter, the OP no.1 directed the complainant to move an “In Principal Approval” application for principal approval from the OP no.2 bearing project ID no.NHB/IPA/06AHR0001564 dated 29.01.2018, which was accepted by the OP no.2 and it was implied approval of the project by the OP no.2 as nothing was objected by them till date.

2.             It is further alleged that National Agro Farm asked the OP no.1 to release the hundred percent cost of the project in advance, the OP no.1 prior to sanctioning the approval of loan released the advance total cost of project to the National Agro Farm on 30.11.2017, whereas the loan proposal has been approved by the Senior Manager, on 26.12.2017, there seems to be smack of corruption having nexus of official of OP no.1 with National Agro Farm, otherwise there was no hurry to release the total cost of project amount to the National Agro Farm. The OP no.1 also asked the complainant to deposit Rs.15,60,000/- which is margin money of the loan with the National Agro Farm, consequently on the directions of the officials of the OP no.1, the complainant invested Rs.15,60,000/- as margin money in the project by giving cash amount. Thereafter, the National Agro Farm has completed the project on 03.08.2018 and a letters thereto have been sent to the OP no.1 alongwith dated 15.06.2018 of Rs.14,40,000/-, dated 15.06.2018 of Rs.4,00,000/-, dated 15.06.2018 of Rs.28,40,000/- and letter dated 15.06.2018 of Rs.5,60,000/- totaling Rs.54,90,000/- including margin money, subsidy amount and term loan of Rs.11,30,000/-. The OP no.1 sent a letter to the OP no.2 for releasing the 100% subsidy alongwith requisite documents vide letter dated 25.02.2019. Thereafter, OP no.2 has not released the subsidy amount and violated the mandatory clauses of the scheme. OP no.1 continuously assured the complainant that the subsidy would be released very soon as and when the complainant approached the OP no.1 but more than two years have lapsed after erection/completion of the project, whereas the OP no.1 has released the total costs of the project i.e. Rs.54,90,000/- including the margin money, to the National Agro Farm, who has installed the Protected Cultivation Net House on 03.08.2018 prior to sanction of loan. The OP no.1 was not acting transparently with the complainant, ultimately the complainant applied for seeking the information under RTI Act on 01.09.2020, from the OP no.1 which has been furnished on 02.09.2020. After going through the information/documents so supplied by the OP no.1, the act of committing fraud and cheating with the complainant has come to the notice of the complainant as prior to this she has not been properly guided by the OP no.1 at any point of time and it was revealed in the reply of the application at Sr. No.11 that the subsidy has been rejected by NHB, which has been kept concealed by the OP No.1 till 02.09.2020 on the ground that “Hard copy of IPA application not received within 60 days of online application.” This fact has been kept concealed by the OP from the complainant rather the complainant has been made fool. Complainant visited the OP No.2 several times and asked as why the fact of rejection of subsidy was not disclosed to him but OP did not bother to the request of complainant. The OP no.1 has not informed the reason of rejection of the subsidy to the complainant till 02.09.2020. Rather, it was/is the duty of the OP no.1 to get released the subsidy from the OP no.2 by providing the required information and documents to the OP no.2 promptly. The OP no.1 intentionally with malafide intention has not supplied the copy of sanction letter of term loan though it has been applied for by the complainant.

3.             It is further alleged that OP no.1 has directed the complainant to deposit the loan amount by way of half yearly installment of Rs.39,30,000/- including subsidy, whereas the proposal for installing the Protected Cultivation Net House and loan was approved by the Senior Manager for Rs.11,30,000/- excluding the subsidy of Rs.28 lakhs on 26.12.2017 and this fact came into the knowledge of the complainant only on 02.09.2018 when the copy of statement of account was supplied to the complainant by the bank and prior to this, the complainant was unaware about this fact. As such the complainant is not liable to deposit the alleged loan amount of Rs.39,30,000/- including the subsidy amount. At the time of sanctioning the loan for the abovesaid project complainant has got mortgaged her agriculture land measuring 11K-7M for the alleged term loan of Rs.39,30,000/- without her knowledge as the official of the bank obtained the signatures of complainant in bulk and the fact of mortgage of her land against the alleged loan amount of Rs.39,30,000/- was in complainant’s knowledge then certainly the complainant would have not signed the alleged loan agreement and mortgage deed. OP no.1 has played fraud and cheating with the complainant, for which the complainant reserves her right to file criminal complaint against the erring officials of the bank as well as against the bank itself. OP no.1 is not entitled to recover the alleged loan amount of Rs.39,30,000/- but the OP no.1 is threatening the complainant to put the land of the complainant on auction if she fails to deposit the installments in time. Complainant requested the OP several times for release of the subsidy alongwith interest which is claimed by the bank against the alleged term loan for compensation regarding sufferings of the complainant but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint.

4.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that Bank has advanced the loan in question to the complainant as per her request to the tune of Rs.39,30,000/- on the execution of requisite loan documents including the creation of Registered mortgage of her agricultural land measuring 11K-7M in favour of OP and he further undertook to repay the said loan as per repayment schedule of the same. The complainant approached the OP with a written request alongwith project of protected cultivation of Rs.56,90,000/- in the month of December, 2017 to extend him financial help by way of a Term Loan of Rs.39,30,000/- for cultivation of cucumber crop and other seasonal crops in 4000 sq. meters land in village Labarki, Tehsil  District Karnal. The said loan was sanctioned to the complainant on 04.01.2018. Complainant mortgaged her agricultural land measuring 11K-7M as a collateral security of said loan and also executed relevant loan documents and further undertook to repay the said loan as per repayment schedule agreed by him i.e. in 84 months. The complainant has failed to regularly repay the aforesaid loan and consequently OP no.1 demanded the overdue amount of installment, but rather to repay the overdue amount of the loan, complainant has filed the present complaint and also prior to this complaint a Civil Suit was also filed without any rhyme and reason to defeat the bank’s right of recovery of outstanding loan. So far as, the release of subsidy to the complainant is concerned, the same should have been released by the OP no.2 to the complainant in her account as per the terms of subsidy but OP is only concerned with the loan of Rs.39,30,000/- advanced to the complainant as the subsidy was to be granted by the OP no.2 as per Central Government Schemes. As far as the release of subsidy is concerned the same is directly in between OP no.2 and the complainant. So keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no prima facie case lies in the favour of complainant and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the OP. The complainant has wrongly alleged that the National Horticulture Board has nexus with every bank and financial institution in India and the Banks are working for the implementation of scheme whereas the said National Horticulture Board is constituted by the Central Government under the Ministry of Agriculture which  has launched various agricultural schemes for the benefit of farmers, so that benefit of the Government schemes can be passed on to the farmers and make them aware about the various formalities/documents required for the successful execution of the project as per schemes of NHB. It is denied that banks and financial institution are working for advertising the schemes of NHB for subsidy on large scale whereas on knowing the factum of subsidy benefits, the successful farmers intend to promote the NHB schemes, if the farmers came to the bank for availing the loan facilities and want to understand the formalities for availing the benefits of subsidy from NHB then the same has to be clarified by the Banks. Though the availability of subsidy is subject to availability of budget with NHB and also subject to the other guidelines prevailing in this regard which requires many formalities to be completed by the farmers/complainant and executors of the project. It is further pleaded that for installation of naturally ventilated shade/net house, complainant himself voluntarily got executed agreement dated 30.11.2017 with National Agro Farm having its registered office at SCO 130, First floor sector-25, Panchkula Haryana prior to the request for said loan. Said agreement was for installation of naturally ventilated shade net house with aluminium sheet (green sheet) on 4000 sq. meters in village Labarki tehsil and District Karnal. OP no.1 has neither assured to get the subsidy released to the complainant from NHB and nor assured him to deduct the same from the advance loan as the subsidy is a grant which was to be allowed by NHB under its certain conditions. Because as per the guidelines of NHB, complainant had to adhere various formalities including online application etc. i.e. IPA and NHB subject to execution/completion of project as per prescribed standard/parameters of NHB for which NHB had to be directly approached by the complainant.

5.             It is further pleaded that after completion of all the formalities, OP no.1 has considered the loan application of complainant and disbursed the term loan of Rs.39,30,000/- to the complainant. Complainant has also executed loan documents like Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural Loans and guarantee agreement by the guarantor against the loan of Rs.39,30,000/-, on 4^th January, 2018 beside the registered mortgage of agricultural land measuring 11K-7M situated in village Labakari Tehsil and District Karnal in favour of OP no.1 bank. It is further pleaded that Bank has not allotted work of said project to National Agro Farm, no project report was prepared by OP no.1 and no loan of Rs.11,30,000/- was advanced by the OP no.1 to complainant and also no deduction of subsidy was made at the time of sanctioning and advancement of loan,  infact complainant was sanctioned and advanced the loan of Rs.39,30,000/- and in lieu of the said loan complainant has voluntarily executed/signed the loan documents  and also has mortgaged her agricultural land and got incorporated the charge of OP no.1 in the concerned revenue record on mortgaged land measuring 11K-7M.  The complainant has made some payment to National Agro Farm on their completion of project from the loan amount and margin money. It is further pleaded that being in default in repayment schedule of advanced loan, the OP no.1 bank demanded the overdue amount of loan time and again in order to keep the said loan but rather to regularly pay the installment of loan, complainant raised many excuses and ultimately leveled false allegations against the OP no.1 without any reason. The reason of rejection of claim of subsidy was that the complainant did not sent the hard copy of IPA already sent  on-line to the National Horticulture Board at its office at 18 industrial area Gurugram within 60 days from the date of sending the same online. However, in this regard NHB did not inform or sent any notice with regard to non-sending of the hard copy of IPA by the complainant for payment of subsidy to the complainant or inform the bank, although NHB is in direct contact of complainant and usually have the correspondence with him. Thus, the official of OP no.1 did not raised any query/objection against the rejection of subsidy claim. The reason for rejection of subsidy claim of complainant was duly informed to the complainant by the bank as soon as information of rejection was received from NHB in the office of OP no.1. The issue of subsidy was in between complainant and OP no.2, whereas bank has no concern with the release of subsidy to the complainant as the same is exclusively related to complainant. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 is entitled to recover the entire outstanding loan amount alongwith agreed rate of interest accrued upon the loan of Rs.39,30,000/- from the complainant. On account of default in repayment schedule, OP no.1 is entitled to recover the outstanding loan through the process of law. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.    

6.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; limitation and concealment of facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant is not consumer of OP as per definition provided in section 2(7)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act. The subsidy granted by the OP under its Bank-ended Capital Investment Subsidy is an Aid from the Government to the eligible projects and from no point of imagination the complainant can be consumer of OP no.2.  OP no.2 was set up for development of commercial horticulture through production and post harvest management, implements the scheme for grant of Back-Ended Capital Investment Subsidy. The said scheme is applicable only for projects of horticulture with high tech components and techniques. Subsidy is a grant from the Government and any citizen cannot claim a right to get the said subsidy. The sanction and disbursement of the subsidy is strictly governed by the terms and conditions of the scheme. It is further pleaded that complainant has also filed a civil suit on the similar facts and circumstances before the Civil Judge, Karnal and the same is pending for its adjudication and therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that OP no.2 was setup by the Government of India to promote the integrated development of Horticulture and to help in coordinating, stimulating and sustaining the production and processing of fruits and vegetables and also to establish a sound infrastructure therefore, with special emphasis on post harvest management and cold chain to reduce loses. OP no.2 provides by way of subsidy under various schemes prescribed for the purpose to facilitate the completion of such projects but for such assistance cannot either be under taken if the project fails to avail term loan within the stipulated period of one year from the date of issue of IPA to the project or if there is any concealment on the part of the beneficiary. It is further pleaded that subsidy is a grant from the Government and any citizen cannot claim a right to get subsidy. It is further pleaded that tentative subsidy claim in respect of the project of the complainant for cultivation of cucumber under protected cultivation in 4000 sq. meter was received by the OP no.2 on 18.03.2019 alongwith letter issued by the bank dated 25.02.2019. The complainant had applied online application for issuance of IPA on 29.01.2018 for the abovesaid activity and the proposal of the complainant was placed before the Pre-project Appraisal Committee meeting which were held on 18.05.2018 and after detailed discussion, the committee had rejected the proposal of the complainant due to the reasons that hard copy of IPA application was not received by the OP no.2 within 60 days from the date of online application and the decision of the committee has been communicated to the OP no.1 i.e. financing bank as well as to the complainant vide letter dated 19.03.2019 by the OP. As per guidelines of the scheme, it is mandatory to submit signed copy of online application alongwith other necessary enclosures within 30 days from the date of online application which was lateron extended for 60 days from the date of online application vide NHB circular dated 10.01.2018. Complainant is not entitled for any subsidy since he has not complied with the scheme guidelines of OP no.2. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of scheme of National Horticulture Board Ex.C1, copy of quotation Ex.C2, copy of project report Ex.C3, copy of performa invoice dated 02.02.2018 Ex.C4, copy of In-Principle Sanction for Term Loan Ex.C5, copy of mortgage deed Ex.C6, copy of affidavit of complainant Ex.C7, copy of completion certificate Ex.C8, copies of bills invoices Ex.C9 and Ex.C10, copy of subsidy claim form Ex.C11, copies of format 11-A, 11-B and IV B Ex.C12 to Ex.C14, copy of Application under RTI Act Ex.C15, supply of documents under RTI Act Ex.C16, copy of simple mortgaged deed Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on 29.11.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered  into evidence affidavit of Parbhat Sarowa Loan Officer Ex.RW1/A, copy of agreement between National Agro Farm and complainant Ex.R1, copy of project report Ex.R2, copy of loan application Ex.R3, copy of sanction letter of loan Ex.R4, copy of simple mortgage deed Ex.R5, copy of memorandum of agreement Ex.R6, copy of guarantee agreement Ex.R7, copy of completion certificate Ex.R8, copy of application to National Horticulture Board for releasing of subsidy Ex.R9, copies of format 11-A, 11-B Ex.R10-A and Ex.R10-B, copy of proposal letter dated 19.03.2019 regarding NHB’s scheme for cultivation of Cucumber in net house Ex.R11, copy of In-Principle Approval Application Form Ex.R12, copies of letters of demand of installments Ex.R13, Ex.R13-A, Ex.R13-B Ex.R13-C, copy of general power of attorney Ex.R14, copy of letter of undertaking Ex.R15 and closed the evidence on 12.12.2023 by suffering separate statement.

10.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Shanta Kumar Dubey Ex.OP2/A, copy of authority letter dated 12.12.2022 Ex.OPW2/1, copy of internal note dated 10.01.2018 and closed the evidence on 12.12.2023 by suffering separate statement.

11.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

12.           Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that the government has launched a scheme to provide the high tech technology to interested farmers for drawing their agriculture yield. The official of the OP no.1 met the complainant and persuaded him to get ready for adopting the latest high tech technology under the scheme of Central Government and also told that according to the scheme, he will be provided subsidy at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq. meter. On the assurance of OP no.1, complainant availed loan under the said scheme. It was the duty of the bank to get released the subsidy from the OP no.2 and the bank officials had also assured the complainant that the subsidy will be deducted from the term loan but no subsidy has been provided by the OPs. The complainant being an illiterate person was not having knowledge with regard to obtaining subsidy. Very surprising, the loan was disbursed on 30.11.2017, whereas, the same has been sanctioned on 26.12.2017. The OP bank has got signed bundle of blank documents by keeping the complainant in dark. The complainant has availed loan amounting to Rs.39,30,000/- and out of which margin money of Rs.15,60,000/- has been deposited by the complainant and remaining Rs.28,00,000/- was subsidy which was to be obtained by the OP No.1 from the OP No.2. The OP No.1 never intimated the complainant with regard to not receiving subsidy from the OP No.2. It was not the duty of the complainant to complete the formalities with regard to subsidy, rather, it was the duty of the OP bank to complete all the formalities. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

13.           Per-contra, learned counsel for OP No.1 while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that bank has advanced the loan to the complainant to tune of Rs.39,30,000/- and mortgaged her agricultural land measuring 11K-7M. The complainant undertook to repay the said loan as per repayment schedule of the same. The OP has sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.54,90,000/- on 26.12.2017. The complainant has failed to repay the loan and in consequent OP no.1 demanded the overdue amount of installment but rather to repay the overdue amount, the complainant has filed the present complaint and also filed a Civil Suit without any rhyme and reason and right in order to defeat the bank’s right of recovery of outstanding loan. The OP no.1 neither assured to get released the subsidy to the complainant from NHB and nor assured him to deduct the same from the loan advanced to him. The issue of subsidy was in between complainant and OP no.2, whereas bank have no concern with the release of subsidy to the complainant as the same is exclusively relates to complainant. The OP no.1 is entitled to recover the entire outstanding loan alongwith agreed rate of interest accrued upon the loan of Rs.54,90,000/- from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

14.           Per-contra, learned counsel for OP No.2 while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that the complainant is not consumer of OP as per Consumer Protection Act. The subsidy granted by the OP under its Bank-ended Capital Investment Subsidy is an Aid from the Government to the eligible projects and from no point of imagination the complainant can be consumer of OP no.2. OP No.2 was set up for development of commercial horticulture through production and post harvest management, implements the scheme for grant of Back-Ended Capital Investment Subsidy. The said scheme is applicable only for projects of horticulture with high tech components and techniques. Subsidy is a grant from the Government and any citizen cannot claim a right to get the said subsidy. The sanction and disbursement of the subsidy is strictly governed by the terms and conditions of the scheme. The complainant has also filed a civil suit on the similar facts and circumstances before the Civil Judge, Karnal. The complainant had applied online application for issuance of IPA on 29.01.2018 for the abovesaid activity and the proposal of the complainant was placed before the Pre-project Appraisal Committee meeting which were held on 18.05.2018 and after detailed discussion, the committee had rejected the proposal of the complainant due to the reasons that hard copy of IPA application was not received by the OP no.2 within 60 days from the date of online application and the decision of the committee has been communicated to the OP no.1 and to the complainant on 19.03.2019. The complainant is not entitled for any subsidy since he has not complied with the scheme guidelines, thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

15.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

16.           As per record, the complainant has availed the term loan of Rs.39,30,000/- from the OP No.1. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the complainant was bound to repay the loan but complainant has failed to repay the said loan amount to the OP No.1.

17.           The OP No.2 has alleged that the complainant does not fall under the ambit of consumer as defined under Section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

18.           Before going to the merits of the case, firstly we decide whether the complainant falls within the definition of “consumer” as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or not?

 19.          The definition of Consumer as defined in Section 2 sub clause (7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced as under:-

(7)    Consumer means any person who:-

i)      buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

ii)        hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are available of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

20.            In the present case, nothing has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised by the complainant to the OP No.2, hence, the complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer of OP No.2 as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 

21.           For the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that the complainant is consumer of OPs, in that eventuality, the complainant has relied upon the various documents i.e. copy of scheme of National Horticulture Board Ex.C1, copy of quotation Ex.C2, copy of project report Ex.C3, copy of performa invoice dated 02.02.2018 Ex.C4, copy of In-Principle Sanction for Term Loan Ex.C5, copy of mortgage deed Ex.C6, copy of affidavit of complainant Ex.C7, copy of completion certificate Ex.C8, copies of bills invoices Ex.C9 and Ex.C10, copy of subsidy claim form Ex.C11, copies of format 11-A, 11-B and IV B Ex.C12 to Ex.C14, copy of Application under RTI Act Ex.C15, supply of documents under RTI Act Ex.C16, copy of simple mortgaged deed Ex.C17 and OP No.1 has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of agreement between National Agro Farm and complainant Ex.R1, copy of project report Ex.R2, copy of loan application Ex.R3, copy of sanction letter of loan Ex.R4, copy of simple mortgage deed Ex.R5, copy of memorandum of agreement Ex.R6, copy of guarantee agreement Ex.R7, copy of completion certificate Ex.R8, copy of application to National Horticulture Board for releasing of subsidy Ex.R9, copies of format 11-A, 11-B Ex.R10-A and Ex.R10-B, copy of proposal letter dated 19.03.2019 regarding NHB’s scheme for cultivation of Cucumber in net house Ex.R11, copy of In-Principle Approval Application Form Ex.R12, copies of letters of demand of installments Ex.R13, Ex.R13-A, Ex.R13-B Ex.R13-C, copy of general power of attorney Ex.R14 and copy of letter of undertaking Ex.R15 and OP No.2 has relied upon the documents copy of authority letter dated 12.12.2022 Ex.OPW2/1 and copy of internal note dated 10.01.2018

22.           The complainant has already filed a civil Suit before the Civil Court at Karnal on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the issue involved in the present complaint requires elaborate evidence and same cannot be decided in summary procedure under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the best platform to decide the matter in dispute is the Civil Court where elaborate and detailed testimony can be produced by the parties. In this regard, we have placed reliance upon the observations made in case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007 (4) CPJ Page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court. Further, in case titled as M/s The Bills through its Proprietor Versus PNB reported in 1998 (1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh it has been held that complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

23.          Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down the aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is not maintainable before the Commission and is hereby dismissed with the liberty to complainant to approach before the Civil Court, if so desired. In view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 the complainant would be at liberty to get the benefit of provisions of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint before this Commission while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint. No order as to cost. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated: 07.06.2024 

  President,       

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)              (Dr. Suman Singh) 

                        Member                          Member