BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.84/2009

Between

Complainant : Rini Siby W/o Siby,

Kunnumpurathu House,

Kanjikuzhy P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : The Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Chelachuvadu P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv:Sibi Thomas)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Complainant availed a loan of Rs.3,60,000/- from the opposite party bank and started a Small Scale Industry unit at Kanjikuzhy, for the manufacture of Hollow Bricks. For that she mortgaged 4 cents of land in survey No.16/2 (old survey No.161/1) of Kanjikuzhy village owned by her father, to the opposite party bank. The husband of the complainant is also a surety for the loan. The loan was availed as per the Self Employment Scheme of the Rural Employment generation programme of the Khadi and village Industries Commission of the Government. The complainant completed the training and interview conducted by the Commissioner for Khadi and village Industries. Registration of the Khadi Commission was also received. There was a subsidy of Rs.1,14,000/- for the loan. The complainant supplied all the necessary documents to the opposite party bank on 05/12/2006 for receiving the subsidy. The said subsidy amount must deposit for 2 years in the account and entitled to disburse to the complainant or should be paid in the loan account. On 21/11/2008 a registered notice was received from the opposite party demanding to pay the loan amount and interest. When the complainant enquired about the same, it is revealed that the documents necessary for the grant of subsidy were not filed before the Khadi Commission by the opposite party. The complainant is entitled to pay only a small amount if the subsidy obtained. So the petition is filed for getting the subsidy amount from the Khadi Commission.

2. As per the written version of the opposite party the complainant never paid any amount to the loan account after receiving the same. So the loan account became Non Performing assets in accordance with the provisions and Rules applicable under the provisions of securitization and reconstruction of Banking assets and enforcement of security interest Act, 2002. In order to recover the amount the opposite party appointed an authorized officer as per the provisions of the Act. Demand notices were given to the complainant nearly 7 times. The total balance outstanding as on 03/10/2008 is Rs.4,29,162/-. Then the opposite party approached Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Thodupuzha for taking possession of the secured assets and documents of the petitioner. Then the complainant approached Honourable High Court as WP(C) No.12088/2009(E), the Honourable High Court ordered the petitioner to pay the amount at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month. But the complainant never acted upon that and so the interim order stand vacated. Moreover when the opposite party received an application form cum receipt for claiming "margin" from Khadi and village Industries, from the complainant on 20/05/2006, it was forwarded through Regional Office Trivandurm to the State Director, Khadi and Village Industries. Mean while the Khadi and Village Industries issued a circular on 01/06/2008. As per Circular, Application for registration should be accompanied by a registration fee, 1% of the total project cost. The complainant's application was returned due to lack of registration fee, hence it is returned to the branch. The opposite party intimated this matter to the complainant through telephone and letter, but the complainant never turned up. So there is no will full laches from the part of opposite party.

3. Before going through the evidence the matter was heard from both parties. The application for releasing margin money to the complainant was rejected due to the following reason.

"The applicaiton for registration and the registration fee at the rate of 1% of the total project cost should be enclosed along with the margin money claim". As per the opposite party the matter was duly intimated to the complainant. But the complainant's dispute is that, it was not informed to the complainant by the opposite party, if it was informed, the complainant was ready for paying the same. Moreover the complainant once apporached Honourable High Court regarding the payment of the loan amount. But the interim order from the Honouranble High Court vacated because the complainant made default in depositing the installments.

So we think that it is not proper to interfere in the matter once decided by the Honourable High Court and the releasing of margin money is not a process from the part of opposite party.

Hence the petition dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of August,2009.

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)