BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF JULY 2023

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :          MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 460/2015

V/s

O R D E R

BY SMT. SUNITA .C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite party being aggrieved by the Order dated 15.04.2015 passed in CC.No.25/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumkur and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.

2.     The brief facts of the case are as under:

        That the complainant for her livelihood has started Hallow bricks manufacturing unit during the year 2010-2011 under the name and style VMG Hallow Bricks at Belagumba Village, Tumkur and the said unit started under Prime Minister Employment Generation Program of Khadi and Village Industries Commission Board and the OP being satisfied with all the eligibility conditions of the complainant, has sanctioned loan of Rs.20,00,000/- on 06.08.2010 and as per the project and understanding the complainant undergone EDP training at Mybank Institution for promotion of self employment and development (MIPSED) Hirehalli Industrial Area, Tumkur from 20.10.2010 to 03.11.2010 and the said authority had issued necessary certificate in favor of complainant for successful completion of training and that the OP though agreed to sanction the subsidy claim to the complainant as per the said project, but failed to give subsidy benefit to the complainant and the said fact is clear from the letters dated 01.02.2011 and 09.03.2011 and hence the complainant requested several times to the OP to get benefit of subsidy, but it went in vain and that it has become difficult to run the said unit of manufacturing Hallow bricks.

3.  The OP has appeared through advocate and has filed objection wherein it is admitted that the complainant is the account holder of the OP and thereby customer of the Bank and inter-alia contended that the OP has no knowledge with regard to running of hallow bricks unit by the complainant during 2010-11 at Belagumba Village, Tumkur for her livelihood and she started the unit under PMEGP of Khadi & Village Industries Commission Board and that it is false that the OP has not sanctioned loan of Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainant on 06.08.2010 and that the OP has no knowledge about the complainant undergoing EDP training at MYBANK Institute for promotion of Self Employment and Development at Hirehalli Industrial Area from 20.10.2010 to 03.11.2010 and the said authorities issued necessary certificate to the complainant for having participated successfully and for completion of training and that the OP has not agreed to grant subsidy claim to the complainant as per the project, PMEGP loan scheme sanctioned will be released in favour of the beneficiaries of New Units only and such being the case the complainant is not eligible to get subsidy benefits through the OP and that the complainant collusion with then Branch Head had obtained false documents and forwarded the same to the concerned authorities/agencies to get subsidy benefits under PMEGP Scheme and that the complainant when failed with her attempts to get the above benefits filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman (Karnataka) R.B.I. Bangalore and the Banking Ombudsman on receipt of detailed reply from this OP disposed off the petition vide order dated 19.12.2012 and that the complainant without disclosing the order of banking ombudsmen has approached this forum with false grounds to get illegal claim.

4.     After trial, the District Commission had allowed the complaint in part with cost of Rs.3,000/- and directed the OP to pay the subsidy amount to the complainant with the interest at rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint to till the date of realization.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal on various grounds.

 6.    Heard arguments from both sides.

7.     Perused the appeal memo and the order passed by the District Commission we noticed that, it is an admitted fact that the Respondent is the account holder of the Appellant Bank.  The allegations of the Respondent are that the appellant had agreed to sanction the subsidy claim as per the project but failed to give subsidy benefits.  Even several requests appellant went to vain and that’s why she has become difficult to run the said unit.  

8.     Per contra, the appellant has admitted that the complainant is account holder of the Appellant bank and appellant has no knowledge with regard to running of Hallow Bricks unit by the complainant during the 2011 at Belagumba Village Tumkur for her livelihood and she started unit under PMEGP of Khadi and village Industries Commission Board.  Moreover, the appellant has not sanctioned the loan of Rs.25,00,000/- to the Respondent on 06.08.2010 and that appellant has no knowledge about the Respondent under EDP training MY BANK Institute for promotion of Self Employment and Development at Hirehalli Industrial Area, Tumkur from 20.10.2011 to 3.11.2010 and the said Authorities issued necessary certificate to the Respondent for having participated successfully for completion of training.  Further, the appellant has not agreed to grant subsidy claim to the Respondent as per the project.

9.     Perused the order passed by the District Commission we noticed that, the District Commission after perusal of the documents produced by the Respondent had passed the order.   It is an evident that Respondent has applied before Joint Director District Industries Centre Tumkur to established Hallow Bricks Unit and Joint Director has given No.P1MMC49871, the certificate to establish the unit as Ex-C-5, Ex-C-7 discloses that Gram Panchayat office  Belagumba,  District Tumkur has issued license to the Respondent to run Hallow Brick Factory within its jurisdiction on 23.10.2009.  Further, it is also evident that Ex-C-6 the Respondent got completed EDP (PMEGP) programme in MY BANK Institute for promotion of Self Employment Development (MIPSED) between 20.10.2010 & 03.10.2010 and concerned authority issued certificate to the Respondent on 03.11.2010.  It is also an evident that the Respondent has not requested to the appellant bank to release subsidy amount on Rs.9,00,000/- but requested to release subsidy on the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-.  It is also an evident that Ex-C-3,C-4 and C-9, loan sanctioned to the Respondent was Rs.25,00,000/- and Respondent was also eligible for subsidy benefits.  If the Respondent has produced reliable documents to prove that she is eligible for the subsidy benefits then it is a duty of the appellant bank to disprove the allegations of the Respondent by supporting documents.  But, the appellant has not produced sufficient documents regarding the unit of Respondent is already existing one and they have not sanctioned loan of Rs.25,00,000/- to this Respondent on 06.08.2010 and he has not agreed to vain subsidy.

10.   Further, the appellant has stated that when Respondent failed with the attempts to get the subsidy benefits before banking Ombudsman Karnataka, RBI Bangalore and Banking Ombudsman on receipt of detailed reply from the appellant bank dismissed the same vide order dated 19.12.2020 and the said facts was not disclosed by the Respondent and filed the case before Consumer Commission to get illegal money.  However, the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy to the consumers, Ombudsman is not a court.  Ombudsman order is binding to the bank only not to the Complainant/Respondent. The order of banking Ombudsman does not binding to Consumer Commissions.  Commissions are decided whether is there any defect, deficiency of service, unfair trade practice, negligence or not?  In present complaint the Respondent has appeared for his grievance before us and perusing the documents we arrived to conclusion that the respondent is eligible for the subsidy benefits.  Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is just and proper.  No interference is required.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Consequently, the order passed by the District Commission in CC.No.25/2014 is confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

MEMBER                                  JUDICIAL MEMBER

P*