1.      This revision petition has been filed by M/s. Joshi’s Tasty Food Pvt. Ltd., petitioner against the order dated 26.04.2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA No.1340 of 2009.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an agro industry, which had taken term loan along with working capital loan from the respondent bank for establishing the industry, under the guidelines of the Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MFPI), Government of India, through Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation and got approval of their project, with a financial assistance of Rs.10.24 lakhs. After decentralization of the Scheme on April 1, 2007, MFPI had returned the file of the petitioner in February, 2008 to Powai Naka Branch, Satara of the respondent bank for reprocessing as per their revised procedure described on MFPI’s e-portal after sanctioning grant of Rs.10.24 lakhs.  Meanwhile, the account of the petitioner became NPA in the year 2005 and subsequently the possession of the factory was taken by the bank under SARFAESI Act, on 29.4.2008. The respondent did not process the proposal in time as per the guidelines of the Ministry of Food Processing Industries and hence the petitioner/complainant suffered a loss of Rs.10.24 lakhs.

3.      Aggrieved with the action of the respondent bank for not processing the claim of the grant amount, the petitioner/complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara, (in short ‘the District Forum’), which vide its order dated 09.10.2009 dismissed the complaint.

4.      Aggrieved with the order dated 09.10.2009 of the District Forum, the petitioner/complainant preferred an appeal No.1340 of 2009 before the State Commission, which was also dismissed vide its ordeer dated 26.04.2010.

5.      Hence the present revision petition.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that due to deficiency on the part of the bank, the petitioner could not get an amount of Rs.10.24 lakhs as financial assistance, which was already sanctioned by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India.  The respondent bank received complete file of the petitioner from the Government of India for processing the case as per the revised procedure of the Ministry.  However, the bank took no action on the file and finally the bank took possession of the factory, under SARFAESI, Act on April 29, 2008 stating that the account had become NPA since 2005.  Had the grant amount of Rs.10.24 lakhs been received by the respondent bank by timely processing the case as suggested by MFPI, Government of India, the loan account would not have become NPA and the factory would have survived. 

8.      Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention to the Circular No.1-42/2005-PC, dated 28.12.2007 issued by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, wherein It has been stated that the files have been received by the respective bank branches as per revised guidelines on e-portal. It means that all the banks were duly instructed to take urgent action on these applications on e-portal.  Thus, the respondent bank also had the information that the matter is to be processed on e-portal.

9.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the loan account had become NPA in the year 2005 itself and there was no question of allowing any subsidy to this account even after receipt of file from NFPI, Government of India, in February, 2008.  The bank was not in a position to process the case of the petitioner because the bank could not have recommended the case when the loan account had already become NPA and this would have been against the financial norms.  Learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that there are numerous judgments to the effect that subsidy seekers would not come within the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The learned counsel cited the case of Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank &Anr., RP No.4894 of 2012, decided on 08.02.2013 (NC), wherein, the revision petition filed by the petitioner/complainant seeking subsidy was dismissed.

10.    I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have examined the record.  There is no doubt that the petitioner/complainant took term loan and working capital loan from the respondent bank to establish his industry, under the Scheme of Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India.  The petitioner’s case was recommended by the Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., vide their letter reference No.Project/MFPI/261/2003 dated 03.04.2003 for financial assistance under the scheme.  There is no doubt that sanction of subsidy took time and the loan account of the petitioner/complainant became NPA in the year 2005.  However, the  MFPI returned the file of the petitioner to the concerned branch of the respondent bank in February, 2008 to process the case as per the new guidelines issued by the MFPI and under the circular dated 28.12.2007.  The bank was already proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, as the loan account had become NPA.  The bank took the possession of the factory on 29.04.2008.  Thus, there was enough time from February, 2008 to April 2008 to process the case of the petitioner on the e-portal of the Ministry.  In fact, had the bank processed this case, they would have credited Rs.10.24 lakhs in the loan account of the petitioner.  This would have helped the petitioner as well as  the respondent bank because outstanding amount of the loan on the petitioner would have been reduced by Rs.10.24 lakhs and the value of the NPA of the bank would have also been reduced by the same amount.  It is observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the sanctioning of the subsidy is not a service and therefore, subsidy seekers are not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  However, in the present case, the complaint is for the deficiency on the part of the bank and not on the part of the Government to provide subsidy.  The bank was not to provide subsidy and it was only to process the case of the petitioner as directed by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries.  Thus, clearly, the bank has been deficient in processing the case of the petitioner, in time, to get Rs.10.24 lakhs in the loan account of the petitioner.  There is a letter dated 02.02.2010 from the bank to the MFPI stating the circumstances under which the application was not processed.  The following portion of the letter is important and is reproduced as under:-      

        “As per the guidelines of MFPI, “in case of any doubts about the eligibility of the unit for the Ministry’s grant on account of the unit having been found to be sick/weak/NPA unit or for any other reason, the Focal Point branch may write to the Ministry giving the factual position for decision of the Ministry.”

        Under such circumstances, can we forward the documents now to MFPI for claiming grant amount and adjust the amount against the o/s dues of Rs.48.63 lakh (Principal o/s Rs.8.25 lakh) as on date to IDBI Bank as detailed below.”

11.    The above portion of this letter itself states that in case of any doubt about the eligibility of the unit, the focal point branch will write to the Ministry for their decision.  However, in the present case, no such information was sent to the Ministry for seeking directions on the case. Thus, the bank has been deficient in this regard as well.

12.    Based on the above discussion, we find that the petitioner/complainant is not entitled to the subsidy amount as for that purpose, he is not a consumer. However, the complainant is a consumer so far as the deficiency in service on the part of the bank is concerned. The bank is definitely found deficient in service in not timely processing the claim of the grant amount and for not referring the matter to the Ministry of Food Processing Industries in time for their decision.  For this deficiency, the petitioner/complainant is entitled to some compensation.  In the circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate that a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) is paid to the complainant/petitioner by the respondent bank.

13.    Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed and order dated 26.04.2010 of the State Commission and order dated 09.10.2009 of the District Forum are set aside.  The respondent/ opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) to the petitioner/complainant as compensation within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, an interest @9%p.a. shall be payable by the respondent from the date of this order till actual payment. It is clarified that if there is any outstanding amount payable by the complainant to the bank, the  bank may adjust this awarded amount. 

14.    Parties to bear their own costs.