Neha Gupta filed a consumer case on 23 Apr 2015 against Distt.Industrial Centre in the Ludhiana Consumer Court. The case no is CC/14/587 and the judgment uploaded on 01 Jun 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 587 of 26.08.2014
Date of Decision: 23.04.2015
Neha Gupta d/o Gobind Gupta r/o 1203, Nauria Thakur Dawara Road, District, Ludhiana.
.…Complainant
Versus
1. District Industrial Centre, near Miller Ganj Post Office, Ludhiana, through its General Manager.
2. Union Bank of India, Hazuri Road Branch, Chauri Sarak, near Sunehari Gurdwara, Ludhiana, through Authorized Signatory.
…..Opposite parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum: Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President
Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member
Smt.Babita, Member
Present: Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate for complainant.
OP1 exparte.
Complaint against OP2 dismissed as withdrawn.
ORDER
(SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)
1. Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Ms.Neha Gupta d/o Gobind Gupta r/o 1203, Nauria Thakur Dawara Road, District, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against District Industrial Centre, near Miller Ganj Post Office, Ludhiana, through its General Manager and other (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to disburse the subsidy amount of Rs.12,500/- alongwith interest @ 15% from the date of releasing loan by the OP2 to the complainant till date, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.3500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant hired the services of the OP in February 2008 under the Prime Minister Employment Planning Scheme for obtaining loan under subsidy for running Karyana shop at 1203, Nauria Ganj Post Office, Ludhiana for earning his self employment and livelihood. The OP1 also given the training under the said scheme as well as is liable to sanction & release the subsidy on receiving loan from the OP2 by the complainant. Under the said scheme the complainant was given the loan of Rs.50,000/- by the OP2 from 19.03.08 to 10.5.08, which was returned by the complainant alongwith applicable interest in the monthly installment of Rs.1150/- till 26.12.12. The OP2 vide its letter dated 21.12.12 also given the no due certificate to the effect that there is nothing due from the complainant against the loan account number 520606130000357. Despite paying entire loan amount with interest in the installment, the OP1 failed to release the subsidy amount of Rs.12,500/- in the loan account of the complainant, whereas OP2 time to time given the reminder to the OP1 in this regard. One of the latest representations made by the OP2 to OP1 is dated 11.3.14 in which it was specifically disclosed by the OP2 that till date they have not received any amount of subsidy under the scheme but as per knowledge even no response so far given by OP1. In this way the OP instead of providing the actual benefit of the scheme to joblessness put the extra burden on the complainant to repay the entire loan amount with installment without affording subsidy amount. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was sent to OP1, which was served. But despite service of the notice, none has come present on behalf of OP1. As such, OP1 is proceeded exparte, vide order dated 13.10.14 of this Forum.
4. On notice of the complaint, OP2 appeared through his counsel Sh.Pawan Aggarwal, Advocate. But the complaint against OP2 was dismissed as withdrawn, as per the statement suffered by Ld. Counsel for complainant, vide order dated 8.4.15.
5. We have gone through the pleading of the complainant and the entire record placed on file.
6. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that the complainant hired the services of the OP in February 2008 under the Prime Minister Employment Planning Scheme for obtaining loan under subsidy for running Karyana shop at 1203, Nauria Ganj Post Office, Ludhiana for earning his self employment and livelihood. Under the said scheme the complainant was given the loan of Rs.50,000/- by the OP2 from 19.03.08 to 10.5.08, which was returned by the complainant alongwith applicable interest in the monthly installment of Rs.1150/- till 26.12.12. The OP2 vide its letter dated 21.12.12 also given the no dues certificate to the effect that there is nothing due from the complainant against the loan account number 520606130000357. Despite paying entire loan amount with interest in the installment, the OP1 failed to release the subsidy amount of Rs.12,500/- in the loan account of the complainant, despite reminders. One of the representations made by the OP2 to OP1 dated 11.3.14, vide which it was specifically disclosed by the OP2 that they have not received any amount of subsidy under the scheme and as such OPs are found to be deficient in service. In this way, the OP put extra burden on the complainant to repay the entire loan amount with installment without affording subsidy amount.
7. Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and OP1 is directed to release the subsidy to the extent of Rs.12,500/- with simple rate of interest of 6% p.a. from the date, when the subsidy was due till the date of the order. Further Ops jointly and severally are directed to pay Rs.2500/-(Two thousand five hundred only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
(Babita) (S.P.Garg) (R.L.Ahuja)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:23.04.2015
Hardeep Singh
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.