Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/80/2016

Gagandeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank & others - Opp.Party(s)

Sh D S Baath

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 80 of 2016

                                            Date of institution : 17.08.2016                             

                    Date of decision    : 28.02.2017

Gagandeep Singh son of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, r/o village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Branch Manager, C-Serve Branch Banking, ICICI Bank Ltd., Bassi Road, opposite Baba Z.S.F.S.School, Jyoti Swaroop Chowk, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. ICICI Bank, SCO 9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160-017 through its authorized signatory.
3. ICICI Bank Ltd. Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara, 39007 (Gujarat) through its Chairman/Managing Director.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                               

 Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :  Sh.D.S.Baath, Adv. counsel for the complainant.       

                Pt. Narinder Kumar, Adv.Cl. for OPs.

ORDER

 

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

            Complainant, Gagandeep Singh son of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, r/o village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.         The complainant is having a saving bank account No.150601502402 in ICICI Bank, Branch Fatehgarh Sahib. In the month of June 2012, OP No.1 introduced a dairy loan scheme through local milk centers, in which OPs have given 25% subsidy on the loan amount. Accordingly, the complainant obtained dairy loan for an amount of Rs.55,000/- from OP No.1, which was sanctioned on 20.06.2012 and installment of Rs.1842/- per month was settled for three years. At the time of obtaining the said loan, the OPs assured that if complainant pays regular installments of said loan, then he will get subsidy i.e. 25% of the total loan amount, which is approximately Rs.15,000/-. The complainant has cleared the said loan amount with the stipulated period and nothing is due towards the complainant. After the said payment the complainant so many times requested the OPs to pay the amount of subsidy as assured by the OPs. But the OPs did not listen the genuine requests of the complainant and put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  The complainant also served legal notice but all in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay 25% subsidy upon the said loan amount and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment and mental pain and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation along with interest.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed the joint written reply. In reply to the complaint they raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature; the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts; the present complaint is not maintainable for want of cause of action and the same is not maintainable in the present form for want of jurisdiction. As regards to the facts of the complaint, OPs stated that Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Animal Husbandry launched Diary Entrepreneurship Development scheme(DEDS) for the farmers for establishment of small dairy units with cross bread cows/indigenous descript milch cows like Sahiwal, Red Sindhi, Gir, Rathi etc/graded buffaloes upto 10 animals( for SHGs, Cooperative Societies, Producers Companies unit size will be 2-10 animals per member). The subsidy under the said assistance was 25% of the project cost (33.33% of SC/ST farmers) subsidy shall be restricted on pro-rata basis to a maximum of 10 animals subject to Rs.15,000/- per animal(Rs.20,000/- for SC/ST farmers) of actual whichever is lower. The beneficiary can purchase animal of higher cost, however, the subsidy was restricted as per the above ceiling.  The OPs implemented the said scheme through their bank and on the request of the complainant it sanctioned the amount of Rs.55,000/- on 20.06.2012, vide loan account No.K9CHD00026544239 for one animal subject to terms and conditions of the scheme.  It is further stated that no such assurance was given by the respondent for releasing the subsidy. The subsidy is payable as per the instructions/notification issued by Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Animal Husbandry which was to be released by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development(NABARD). As per the scheme no subsidy is payable to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copy of documents i.e. loan account statement Ex. C-2, receipts Ex. C-3 and C-4, legal notice Ex. C-5, original postal receipts Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Jageshwer Singh Ex. OP-1, true copy of circular dated 3/2010 Ex. OP-2, true copy of guidelines Ex. OP-3 and loan account Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence.

5.                   The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that he obtained a dairy loan of Rs.55,000/- from OP No.1 and was given assurance that under the scheme, he would get 25% subsidy of total loan amount. The total loan amount alongwith interest has timely been paid by March 2016. But inspite of repeated requests and legal notice served on the OPs, no subsidy has been paid till today. Neither any response nor any reply to legal notice or any subsidy has been received inspite of repeated requests. The Ld. counsel also pleaded that neither instructions/guidelines of the loan scheme were shown nor given to the complainant, which have been tendered by the OPs during the pendency of the complaint. And that he was covered under Sr. No.(ix) of the dairy loan scheme. Ld. counsel argued that the OPs have committed deficiency in service by not releasing subsidy and indulged in unfair trade practice by not supplying the guidelines at the time of sanctioning the loan and pleaded for acceptance of his complaint and penalizing the OPs on these accounts.

6.                   The Ld. counsel for the OPs argued that no such assurance was given by the OPs for the payment of subsidy. As per the guidelines of the scheme, subsidy is payable for a minimum unit of 2 animals and the complainant had obtained loan for one animal only.  He was covered under Sr. No.1 and not Sr. No.(ix) of scheme. Sr. No.(ix) of the scheme pertains to setting up of dairy marketing outlet/Dairy Parlour. There is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The complainant is not entitled to any subsidy or any compensation. Ld. counsel thus denying the other averments made in the complaint and pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.

7.                   After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced, and the arguments of the parties, we find that there is force in the submissions of the Ld. counsel for the OPs. That the complainant is not entitled to any subsidy since he had taken loan for one animal only, whereas the guidelines of the scheme stipulates the subsidy is payable for a dairy unit of minimum two animals. He is covered under Sr. No.1 and not under Sr. No.(ix) of the scheme circulated vide circular No.186/TSD-03/2010(Ex. OP-2).

8.                   But on the other hand, there is no evidence tendered by the OPs to prove that the guidelines/instructions contained in the circular under reference, Ex. OP-2, were supplied to the complainant or got noted by the complainant so that he could decide whether to obtain loan or not and for how many animals? On this account, there is certainly deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs for not supplying the guidelines to the complainant and not explaining the details of the scheme.

9.                   In view of our above discussions, we partly accept the present complaint and find that OPs have committed deficiency in service by not supplying the guidelines to the complainant to enable him to make a judicious decision. Hence, we direct the OPs to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for not supplying the guidelines, thus committing deficiency in service and indulging in unfair trade practice. The complainant is not entitled to any subsidy on the loan. The compensation be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, otherwise it will carry 9% p.a interest till its realization.

10.                 Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:28.02.2017

 (Veena Chahal)                       Member

 

      (A.B.Aggarwal)                       Member