SRI D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the OP in brief is, that she is as a Proprietrix , caring on Printing works and her Industry is covered under the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme of the Government of India, provided the machinery is purchased by obtaining bank loan. The link to the subsidy scheme is implemented to enable micro small medium industry to obtain subsidy if they purchase technology upgraded machinery. Several such investments made units have already availed government subsidy. The OP with whom she has availed several loans and despite repayments is not extending subsidy facility. In this case she has availed term loan of Rs.67.18 Lakhs for purchase of digital printer. This money was to be repaid in 30 installments of Rs.2,64,638/- per each EMI. She has already repaid 19 installments on time. She has submitted complete documents to OP on 4/5/2009 to be handed over to SIDB, Bangalore. But the Op has not responded and is not implementing Government RBI Welfare Scheme. Hence prayed for to help her to recover subsidy amount of Rs.11,76,300/- from her balance amount payable to Ops.<br /> <br /> The Op has appeared through his counsel and filed version, in which he has by denying all other allegations admitted to have advanced a loan of Rs.67,18,400/- to the complainant as a term loan, but stated that the complainant did not request to enroll herself under the scheme of Credit linked Capital Subsidy Scheme of Government of India. The complainant at a later stage requested for which they have told her that it was not possible to include under that scheme at that stage. Further, since the amount involved is more than 50 Lakhs, the complainant can not have that facility and same can not be converted for the subsidy facility and thereby has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry the complaint, the complainant One R. Harish Srivathsa for the Op have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complainant has produced copies of few letters she had addressed to OP, her loan account extract, a copy of letter to Op addressed to Small Industries Development Bank of India with the connecting documents. The Op has not produced any documents. The complainant who is personally conducting the case has not turned up on hearing dates, after the case is posted for arguments. After six adjournments after posting the case for appearance of the complainant and when she did not turn up and remained absent and we have heard the arguments of the counsel of the Op and taken the complainant as heard and posted this complaint for orders.<br /> <br /> On considering the above materials following point for determination arise,<br /> i) Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service by not extending subsidy fecility to her to an extent of Rs.11,76,300/-? <br /> ii) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Answer on Point No: 1 In the negative. <br /> Answer on Point No. 2 See the final Order.<br /> <br /> Reasons:<br /> Answer on Point No:1 As could be seen from the complainant allegations, that she availed term loan of Rs.67.18 Lakhs from the OP for running her Printing Industry. Though in her complaint she has stated that her industry is covered under Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme of the Government of India, but admittedly she did not apply for loan and avail under this scheme called Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme of Government of India. The OP also conceded that nature of loan availed by the complainant was a term loan and not the loan of subsidy scheme. The complainant therefore when she did not avail the specific loan under the subsidy scheme and having availed term loan in our view can not asks for subsidy facility. The OP also in his version and also in the affidavit evidence has categorically stated that the complainant did not enroll herself under the scheme of credit linked capital subsidy scheme of Government of India and her belated request for including her in that scheme could not be considered. This stand of the OP is neither denied nor controverted by the complainant. Therefore when a person avails term loan, can not avail subsidy facility, then the complaint of the complainant for extending subsidy in our view do not survive. <br /> <br /> On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant herself prove that she herself is not sure whether she was entitled for subsidy fecility or not in view of the availments of the term loan. The complainant in her letter addressed to the OP which is not dated , however the Op after receipt of the same put the date as 4/5/2009 in the last line of the 1st para of the letter she has stated “We are of the view, we are eligible for the Subsidy” and in para-3 of the same letter she has requested the Op to check up whether she would fall in that subsidy scheme called MSME Scheme CLCSS. Thus, on reading these contents make it clear that the complainant was not sure, whether she was entitled for subsidy in view of the fact that she had availed term loan and she had not applied for loan under that scheme after ascertaining. . As stated by us, the categorical statement of the OP that the complainant has not availed loan under subsidy scheme is not contradicted. Besides this, the complainant after filing her affidavit evidence has not turned up to this Forum to prove whether under the terms and conditions the loan she has availed, she would be entitled for the benefit of subsidy. As she has failed to prove her entitlement, the complaint lack merits and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, we answer Point No:1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> Complaint is dismissed.<br />