Before The Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala .
Complaint No: 2329/2015
Instituted on : 30.12.2015
Decided on : 23.9.2016
Yadwinder Singh s/o Gurnam Singh R/o H. No. B-VI-21, Jawandha Patti, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
...Complainant
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Air Force Station, Thikriwal Road, Barnala, through its Branch Manager
...Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singla counsel for complainant.
Sh. B.B. Menon counsel for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY Ms. VANDNA SIDHU, MEMBER):
As per complaint No. 2329 the complainant is doing the job of tailoring. The complainant came to know that opposite party is giving small loans to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with subsidy of Rs. 7000/-. In the month of November, 2010 the complainant approached the opposite party and enquired from the opposite party whether there is any scheme of the opposite party that whether they are giving small loan of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith subsidy of Rs. 7,000/-. The opposite party confirmed the same. Trusting the words of opposite party the complainant asked the opposite party to give the loan of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant completed all the formalities pertaining to disbursement of the said loan as per the direction of the opposite party. On this the opposite party disbursed the small loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant on 26.11.2010 in the Loan Account No. 217903311000001. Complainant deposited all the installments of the said loan as per the directions of the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party to settle his loan amount and as per the direction of the opposite party paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- lump sum on dated 16.12.2013 with the opposite party. Thereafter a letter dated 23.4.2014 was issued by the opposite party that the loan Account No. 217903311000001, of the complainant was settled and assured that the subsidy amount will be given within three months to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party many a times to get the subsidy amount. The opposite party avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other but all invain. On 27.8.2015 opposite party asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,000/- which remained due against the complainant otherwise the subsidy amount will not be given to the complainant. The complainant showed a letter dated 23.4.2014 issued by the opposite party indicating that loan account has been settled and requested the opposite party to withdraw the said wrong and illegal demand. The opposite party did not accede to the request of the complainant. Under the compelled circumstances, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- with the opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant issued the statement of account of the complainant. The complainant goes through his statement of account and found that the opposite party has wrongly charged Rs. 5,090/- up to 16.12.2013 in the name of legal charges and reversal charges i.e at the time of settlement of loan account. Thereafter, Rs. 3,000/- was wrongly got deposited from the complainant by the opposite party in the name of reversal charges, excess reverse etc. Complainant visited the office of the opposite party to get the subsidy amount of Rs. 7,000/- and excess amount of Rs. 8,090/- charged from the complainant. The act of the opposite party is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice.
Relief.-
1) That direction may be issued to the opposite party to refund of Rs. 8,090/- excess charged from the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization.
2) The direction may be issued to the opposite party to pay the subsidy of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed their version taking legal objections that present complaint is not maintainable. On facts, it is admitted by opposite party that complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite party. It is further mentioned that there is no scheme of subsidy in the said loan and denied that there was subsidy of Rs. 7,000/- in the said loan. Complainant completed all the formalities and filled all the documents by opening bank account to avail the loan facility. Detailed account statement from 26.11.2010 upto 27.8.2015 duly certified by Bank Manager is placed on the record. The plea of the complainant regarding subsidy is false one and requested for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of statement of account Ex.C-2, copy of letter dated 23.4.2014 issued by the opposite party Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.
4. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Devender Kumar, Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file.
6. After perusing the entire record and hearing both the counsels this fact came before this Forum that the main contention is that subsidy was not given to the complainant by the opposite party despite the assurance of it by the opposite party. Counsel for the complainant invited our attention towards Ex.C-3 copy of letter dated 23.4.2014 under title whom it may concern. But in this letter, regarding subsidy nothing has mentioned, only this letter indicates about loan. So, we do not agree with the counsel for the complainant and remaining para No. 3 (b) of the complaint regarding subsidy of Rs. 7,000/-. The principal question is that of grant of subsidy. Those documents which are on record by the complainant do not prove a single line about subsidy by opposite party. Moreover, as per written version it is submitted on facts by opposite party that there is no provision of any subsidy in the loan cases. It is pertinent to mention here about Ex.OP-1 which is affidavit of Manager of opposite party. It is clearly deposed that complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 50,000/- and small loans are not covered under any scheme of subsidy, as such there is no subsidy of Rs. 7,000/- in the said loan of the complainant. The detailed account statement from 26.11.2010 upto 27.8.2015, duly certified by Bank Manager is placed on the record. So, inspite of this Ex.OP-1 and Ex.C-2 itself show only account number, scheme code, small loan, date of loan, title and amount but it nothing gives indication about subsidy. Statement of account Ex.C-2 duly signed by the Manager shows Nil balance on 27.8.2015 i.e there is no credit or debit balance in the account of the complainant. Therefore, the question of excess payment by the complainant to the opposite party does not arise. Presumption of truth lies to the statement of account Ex.C-2 unless it is rebutted.
7. In Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Versus Rewari Central Coop Bank and another reported in I (2013) CPJ-668 (NC) it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission as under.-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2 (1) (d), 2 (1) (o), 21 (b)- Consumer- Grant of subsidy-Subsidy offered to be paid is not 'service' as per Act, 1986- District Forum also concluded that subsidy was not given due to delay- Principal question is that of grant of subsidy- Complainant is not consumer.”
8. This authority is fully applicable to the present facts of the case. Moreover, the learned counsel for the complainant has not cited any contrary judgment to rebut the above said authority.
9. In view of the above discussion the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
23rd Day of September 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
