Karnataka

Kolar

CC/43/2018

N.V.Ramesh s/o Narayanappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.V.Ravindra S/o late Venkataramanappa - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ravindra Babu

09 Jul 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 07/05/2018

Date of Order: 09/07/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 09^th DAY OF JULY 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 43 OF 2018

Sri. N.V. Ramesh,

S/o. Narayanappa,

Vadaguru Village, Huthuru Hobli,

Kolar Taluk.                                                       ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. G. Ravindra Babu, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) H.V. Ravindra,

S/o. Late Venkataramanappa,

Senior Assistant Horticulture Director (ZP),

#37, Near Pavan College, Harohalli Gardens,

Harohalli, Kolar-563 101.

 

Office address: H.V. Ravindra,

Senior Assistant Horticulture Director (ZP),

(State Zone)  Zilla Panchayathi,

D.C. Office Premises, Kolar.

( Ex-parte)

 

2) The Manager, Akruthi Heart Solutions,

#4, DM Chennappa Building,

Doddamarahalli Village, Nandhi Hobli,

Chikkaballapura Taluk & District. PIN-562101.

( Ex-parte)

 

3) The Manager,

Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank,

Kembodi Village, Kolar Taluk.

(Rep. by Sri. B.N. Vasudeva Murthy, Advocate)                …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) against the opposite parties for seeking directions to OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for loss, trouble and mental agony that he had suffered due to negligence in service and delay by OP No.1 in releasing the subsidy amount and any other reliefs as this Forum deems to be fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, he being an agriculturist had applied for grant of subsidy for polyhouse construction during 2016-2017 under the scheme of National Horticultural Mission and his application was accepted by the Horticulture Department and selected as eligible to get said subsidy.

(b)    It is contended that, he had availed loan of Rs.31,92,261/- from Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Kembodi i.e., OP No.3 and constructed poly-house in the land of 02.07 Acres at Vadagur Village, Hurhur Hobli, Kolar Taluk.  The said poly house was constructed by Akruthi Horti Solutions.  As per the norms of the said scheme he has to get subsidy amount of Rs.15,96,130/- i.e., 50% from the loan amount.  Thus he had completed the construction of said poly house on 20.03.2017.  And he had submitted records to Senior Assistant Horticultural Director for release of subsidy on 30.03.2017 and they referred for the release of subsidy amount of Rs.15,96,000/-.  Since not released the subsidy again on 29.06.2017 he has filed application to Horticulture Director in this regard.

(c)    It is further contended in the meeting held on 11.07.2017 the Horticulture Director decided to release subsidy.  Even though OP No.1 has not released the subsidy amount.  So he has written a complaint to District Commissioner, Kolar, and also to Chief Operating Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Kolar in this regard.

(d)    It is further contended that, even though he had completed the construction of poly house in time and also there was an order from concerned authorities to release the subsidy amount OP No.1 by not releasing the subsidy amount caused huge loss and mental agony and rendered deficiency in service.     Hence he has issued legal notices to Ops on 04.04.2018 through his advocate, since of no reply from Ops, the complainant has filed this complaint by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum OP No.3 has put in its appearance through its learned counsel and filed its version. As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet OP Nos.1 & 2 placed exparte.

 

(a)    It is contention of OP No.3 that, the subsidy amount of Rs.15,33,632/- of complainant was received by this OP No.3 Bank on 26.12.2017 from the Government and on the same day itself the said amount was credited to the loan account of the complainant.  Hence there is no deficiency on their part and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and documents marked as Exhibit-P.1 to P.17 and faced cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for OP No.3.  The marked exhibits are as hereunder:-

(i) Office copy of legal notice dt. 04.04.2018 – Ex-P.1

(ii) Postal acknowledgments along with track consignment issued by Postal Department – Ex-P.2

(iii) Reply Notice dt. 21.05.2018 – Ex-P.3

(iv) RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No. 77/4 – Ex-P.4.

(v) Copy of work order dt. 20.01.2017 – Ex-P.5.

(vi) Work Completion report dt. 20.03.2017 issued by Aakruthi Horti Solutions, Chikkaballapur – Ex-P.6.

(vii) Declaration dt. 20.03.2017 issued by Aakruthi Horti Solutions, Chikkaballapur – Ex-P.7.

(viii) Project report running in to 22 sheets – Ex-P.8.

(ix) Copy of letter dt. 15.02.2017 – Ex-P.9

(x) Sanction order dt. 30.03.2017 running in to 02 sheets issued by Horticulture Department, Kolar – Ex-P.10

(xi) Affidavit dt. 30.03.2017 along with declaration running in to 04 sheets – Ex-P.11.

(xii) Copy of the letter dt.31.03.2017 along with declaration – Ex-P.12.

(xiii) Meeting intimation letter dt. 10.07.2017 running in to 02 sheets – Ex-P.13.

(xiv) Three photos – Ex-P.14.

(xv) Letter dt. 18.08.2017 running in to 06 sheets – Ex-P.15.

(xvi) Letter dt. 24.10.2017 and another dated: 25.10.2017 – Ex.P.16.

(xvii) Account Extract of A/c No.69615314012317 – Ex-P.17.

 

05.   As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet dated: 02.07.2018 the learned counsel for OP No.3 submitted as there is no evidence on their part and also no documents submitted.

 

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

(1) Whether is there deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant?

 

(2) If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as he sought?

 

(3) What order?

 

07.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Affirmative as against OP No.1

                       and in the Negative as against OP Nos.2 & 3

 

POINT (2):-      Partly Affirmative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) & 2:-

08.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

09.   On perusal of pleadings and documents of complainant OP No.2 is only constructed the said poly house and moreover there is no allegations against OP No.2 by the complainant.  Hence we consider OP No.2 as formal party and as there is no part of it we dismiss the case against OP No.2.

 

10.   In the version of OP No.3 contended as the subsidy amount of Rs.15,33,632/- it has received on 26.12.2017 and the same day it was credited to complainant’s account.  On perusal of the deposition of complainant as PW.1 dated: 02.07.2018, in his cross-examination he admitted the version of OP No.3 and reads thus:-

“There was no any fault from OP No.3 being a Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank in this complaint.  It is true to suggest that, the day of issuance of said subsidy amount from the concerned department of Government the same day the Bank has remitted to my account.  It is true to suggest that, I made the said bank as formal party to this case, hence there is no claim against OP No.3.”

 

So, in view of the above discussion we opined as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and the case against it is dismissed.

 

11.   On perusal of Exhibit-P.5, the work order dated: 20.01.2017 is for construction of said poly house issued by Horticulture Department, Kolar, and Exhibit-P.6 dated: 20.03.2017 the work completion report given by OP No.1 and Exhibit-P.9 was the letter dated: 15.02.2017 written by complainant to release the subsidy and order dated: 30.03.2017 Horticulture Department granted order to release the subsidy amount.  On perusal of entire documents marked as Exhibits it is crystal clear that, from 30.03.2017 to 26.12.2017 (nearly 09 months delay) the OP No.1 had delayed to release the subsidy amount to complainant.  This act and negligence on the part of OP No.1 made the complainant to suffer with of no fault of him and thus there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  Accordingly we answered point No.1 in the Affirmative as against OP No.1 and Point No.2 in the partly affirmative.

 

POINT (4):-

12.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) to (3) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint is allowed partly as against OP No.1 with cost of Rs.2,000/- and the same is dismissed as against OP Nos.2 & 3 with no costs as hereunder:-

(a) We are herewith directing OP No.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of pronouncement of the said order till the date of realization.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 09^th DAY OF JULY 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT