In short, the complainant’s main allegation is that as bonafide consumer the complainant got the services of opposite parties being selected by the District Task Force Committee as special category candidate under the P.M.E.G.P. for the proposed project of “ Manufacturing Garments” with total project cost of Rs. 3,00,000/- out of which Rs. 1,50,000/- as capital expenditure and Rs. 1,50,000/- as working capital. Thereafter complainant being dissatisfied about the conduct and service of the DIC and bank made several approaches to the opposite parties for disbursement of P.M.E.G.P loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- but no steps has taken by the opposite parties No-1 & 2, but ultimately loan was not sanctioned to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
Upon notice the Opposite party No.2 appeared through his Counsel and filed his written version. On receipt of notice, though the Opposite Party No-1 appeared once on 5.06.2015 through Mr. B.K. Kandulna, IPO thereafter, he set ex-parte for his non-appearance. The Opposite Party No-3 filed his written version denying his liability.
The Op No-2 in his written version submitted on joint verification with the DIC it is came to the light that the complainant is not an un-employed but she has tailoring business and as she is residing in a government occupied land for which her loan application was rejected and returned to DIC, so the complainant should be dismissed.
Decision with Reasons
On careful consideration of the argument as advanced by the complainant and Ld. Lawyer appearing for the Opposite Party No-2 has sanctioned Rs. 3,00,000/- vide his letter No-392 dated 15.09.2014 and communicated the same to the OP No-2 with a copy to the Complainant and the OP No-3. On perusal of PMEGP guideline and the circular of RBI it is found that the RBI directed all the banks for not to insist for collateral Security and third party guarantee in the case of loan up to Rs. 10 Lakh. In support of their plea of rejection, the Opposite Party-1 has not filed any papers.
We have been fortified by a decision Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Branch Manager, State Bank of India-versus-Nirakar Sahoo, General Manager in RP No. 1055/2002 (arising out of the order dated . 3.5.2001 in Appeal/Complaint No. 161/1999 Orissa) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that :
In our view, this submission is also without any substance. The State Commission has rightly held that for the loan which was sanctioned to the Complainant, the bank was to recover interest and the loan would be a consumer and that the complainant is beneficiary of such scheme and therefore, the complaint under the Consumer protection Act, 1986 was maintainable.
It is further held that ;
“We have to state that the welfare schemes framed by the Central Government are being frustrated by various dubious or callous means adopted by the concerned officers either of the Government or of the nationalized banks including the State Bank of India.”
In view of the above, we come to conclusion that the Opposite Party No-1 & 2 illegally and arbitrarily has rejected the loan application of the complainant without any valid reason and not disbursed the loan to the complainant who is an un-employed youth. Hence we are inclined to pass the following order. Hence it is ordered :
ORDER
The Opposite Party No-1 directed to revive the sanctioned loan in favour of the complainant and communicate the same to the Opposite Party No-2 within 15 days on receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of loan sanction letter from the OP No-1 the Opposite Party No-2 is directed to disburse the first phase loan amount to the complainant within 30 days on receipt of loan sanction letter from the OP No-1 in default the Opposite Parties No-1&2 are liable to pay Rs. 200/- each day of delay on their part recoverable from the concerned erring official.
Supply free copy to the Parties as per rules.
Pronounced in open Forum on this 29th August, 2015.
