Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/520/2013

M/s Veeco Electricals - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank L.T.D - Opp.Party(s)

Vaneesh Khanna,Adv

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	520 of 2013
Date  of  Institution	:	19.11.2013
Date   of   Decision	:	10.12.2015

 

 

 

 

 

M/s VEECO ELECTRICALS, Plot No.D-116, Industrial Area, Phase VII, Mohali, through Sh. Anil Gupta, its Proprietor.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

 

1]   HDFC Bank Limited, through its Branch Manager, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002.

 

2]   Small Industries Development Bank of India, through its General Manager, SIDBI Tower, 15, Ashok Marg, Lucknow- 226001.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Vaneesh Khanna, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.R.S.Bhatia, Adv. for OP-1.

Sh.Deepender Singh, Adv. for OP-2

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the Complainant had purchased one Close Loop Energy Saving Thermosetting Injection Moulding Machine with Double Toggles Clamping System from M/s Asian Plastic Machinery Co. Ltd. Tiwan, vide invoice dated 17.03.2011, for a sum of US$ 41,000 after loan facility from Opposite Party No.1 Bank, under CC Loan Account No. 00568970000065. The Complainant being a SSI Unit, under the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme, was entitled for a subsidy of Rs.3.66 lacs, on the purchasing of the abovesaid machine, which was to be released by the Opposite Party No.2, in favour of the Complainant. However, the application for subsidy was to be routed through Opposite Party No.1 i.e. the Bank from where the Complainant had availed the loan facility as the Opposite Party No.2 did not entertain the customers directly. The Complainant had duly supplied all the relevant documents and information to the Opposite Party No.1, which was required for the submission of the application with Opposite Party No.2 for the release of subsidy. The aforesaid scheme was initially valid upto 31.3.2012. Although the Complainant had provided all the requisite documents to Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.1 did not submit the requisite application with the Opposite Party No.2 within time i.e. 31.3.2012, as a result of which the case of the Complainant for the release of subsidy could not be considered by Opposite Party No.2 and the application of the Complainant was returned to Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 6.7.2012. This fact was never disclosed by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant, although the Complainant had been regularly pursuing the matter with Opposite Party No.1. The factum of the late submission and return of the application was intimated to the Complainant by Opposite Party No.2 vide their e-mail dated 27.8.2012 sent in response to the e-mail of the Complainant dated 24.8.2012. The Opposite Party No.2 through the said e-mail had further informed the Complainant that the validity of the aforesaid Scheme had been extended by the Govt. of India for one year vide their O.M. dated 12.7.2012 and advised the Complainant to re-lodge its application for consideration. Accordingly, the Complainant again pursued the matter with the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainant that they had re-lodged its application with Opposite Party No.2 along with all the requisite documents. Since nothing fruitful was coming out, therefore, the Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 30.3.2013 to the Opposite Party No.1 with a copy to Opposite Party No.2. Since no details with regard to the subsidy was being provided either of the Opposite Parties, accordingly, the Complainant, through his Counsel sought information under the RTI Act vide application dated 21.4.2013. But no information was supplied by Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, the Complainant sent another e-mail dated 29.4.2013 to know about the status of the subsidy case of the Complainant. In response to the said mail, Sh.A.K.Mishra, Manager of Opposite Party No.2 vide his e-mail informed the Complainant that the case of the Complainant was received, processed and rejected/ returned on April 15, 2003, due to old reference dated i.e. 24.5.2012. After receiving the above said e-mail, the Complainant wrote a letter dated 1.5.2013 to the Assistant General Manager of Opposite Party No.2 to consider the subsidy case of the Complainant, as the same had been wrongly rejected, on the ground of old reference. However, the Opposite Party No.2 has not till date replied to the abovesaid letter of the Complainant.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and took objection that the loan has been availed by the complainant for “commercial purpose”, hence the complainant is not a consumer and that the Government of India, a necessary party, who is to pay the subsidy, has not been made a party to the present complaint, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The purchase of the machine in question by the complainant is admitted.  It is stated that for the purchase of said machine, the complainant had availed loan from State Bank of Patiala on 4.3.2011, which was taken over by HDFC Bank on 12.9.2011.  It is also stated that the subsidy was to be claimed by the Bank which had originally sanctioned the loan i.e. State Bank of Patiala immediately after the sanction of the loan and availment thereof in March, 2011 and the complainant was aware of this fact.  However, the  complainant decided to get the loan transferred.  It is submitted that whatever and as soon as the documents were supplied by the complainant, on the basis of same, the claim was made by the answering Opposite Party to Opposite Party No.2 and there was no delay on its part.  It is admitted that the scheme had been extended and the bank again submitted the application to Opposite Party No.2, but this time the claim was rejected on 30.8.2012 on the ground that on 31.3.2011 the plan and machinery was installed and the CAs certificate was silent about the type of machine acquired.  In fact the CAs certificate was submitted to SIDBI.  It is also submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 instead of taking clarification intentionally rejected the claim after the expiry of the scheme and the deficiency of service, if any, is on the part of Opposite Party No.2. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint qua Opposite Party No.1.

         The Opposite Party No.2 has also filed reply stating therein that the complainant has no privity of contract with Opposite Party No.2 (SIDBI) and Opposite Party NO.2 is only acting as an nodal agency of Govt. of India for operating CLCSS Scheme and did not charge anything.  It is stated that complainant is not a consumer qua Opposite Party No.2.  It is admitted that the scheme was extended, whereupon Opposite Party No.1 again re-lodged the subsidy claim of the complainant vide letter dated 27.8.2012 which was received by Opposite Party No.2 (SIDBI) on 30.8.2012.  The proposal was considered by Opposite Party No.2 Financial Institution and on scrutiny, the claim was rejected, which was communicated to the HDFC Bank.  That Opposite Party No.1 Bank for the 3^rd time again lodged the claim for subsidy with Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dated 26.3.2013 and the same was rejected by Opposite Party No.2 on 1.4.2013 as the claim was not submitted within the stipulated time prescribed by the Ministry of Small and Medium Enterprises, Govt. Of India and as such the claim had become time barred.  It is pleaded that the date of last disbursement of loan by HDFC Bank was 24.5.2012 and as such the claim for subsidy lodged on 26.3.2013 by HDFC Bank had become time barred, as per the CLCSS Scheme.  Denying all other allegations, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

        

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OPs made in the reply.

 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint on the ground that it is a bonafide A/c holder of the Opposite Party NO.1 and it had availed a loan for the purchase of one Close Loop Energy Saving Thermosetting Injection Moulding Machine With Double Toggles Clamping System from M/s Asian Plastic Machinery Co. Taiwan vide invoice dated 17.03.2011 for a sum of  US$ 41,000/-. The complainant claims that as per the Govt. of India’s Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme, it was entitled for a subsidy of  Rs.3,66,000/- on the purchase of the machine.

 

7]       The complainant being qualified for the said subsidy forwarded its case through Opposite Party.No.1 with in the stipulated time, as the Loan facility was availed from it. The due date for its submission was 31.03.2012. As per the complainant Opposite Party No.1 failed to submit the documents with Opposite Party No.2 within the stipulated time, and the request was rejected for being late. However on coming to know that the scheme has been extended by the Govt. the complainant once again requested the Opposite Party No. 1 to move his case before the Opposite Party No. 2 but to the utter dismay of the complainant his request for grant of the subsidy was turned down by the Opposite Party No.2 vide its communication dated 29.04.2013 citing the reason as due to old reference i.e. dated 24.05.2012.

 

            

8]       We have gone through the documents on record and are of the concerted view that the complainant had approached the  Opposite Party No.1 in the first instance, with its request to forward its case for subsidy to Opposite Party No.2, within the stipulated time frame but as per the shortcomings pointed out in the letter dated 24.05.2012 it had not tendered the case of the complainant in  the desired manner, resultantly it was returned by Opposite Party No.2 seeking its representation on the basis of the shortcomings. The complainant once again moved the file with Opposite Party No.1 on coming to know that the government had extended the date of dealing such cases further for a period of one year. However on the second attempt the case of complainant was once again rejected citing same reasons as per the previous communication dated 24.05.2012.

 

9]       The Opposite Parties while contesting the claim of the complainant have claimed no deficiency in service on their part. Furthermore, Opposite Party No.2 has even raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable against it and that the complainant is not a consumer for the purpose of claiming subsidy, as the same is not a service as provided by any financial institution.  The Opposite Party No.2 has placed reliance on the judgment titled as Ashok Yadav Vs. Rewari Central Cooperative Bank and Anr., R.P. No.4894 of 2012, decided on 8.2.2013 by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, wherein, a similar matter was dealt with and the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, held that subsidy offered to be paid is not a service under the Act, 1986 and the complainant is not a consumer and hence the complaint is not maintainable and deserves dismissal.

 

10]      In view of the above observations and settled law, the present complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable, with no order as to cost.    

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

10^th December, 2015                                                            

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.520 OF 2013

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 10th day of December, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been dismissed.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member