THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No. 156/2009 Wednesday, the 21st day of April , 2010. Petitioner : C.K. Gopakumar, Proprietor, Rohit Motors, Thellakom P.O, Kottayam (By Adv. Avaneesh V.M) Vs. Opposite parties : 1) The Canara Bank, Head Office, M.G. Road, Bangalore Reptd. By its Managing Director. 2) The Canara Bank, Thirunakkara Branch, Kottayam Reptd. By its Branch Manager. (By Adv. Sharjo George) 3) The Director, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, “Gramodya” M.G Road, Thiruvananthapuram. – 1. (By Adv. K.R. Muraleedharan) O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member. The petitioner’s case is as follows: The petitioner who is conducting a workshop for his livelihood approached the second opposite party and enquired about the loan given by Khadi & Village Industries Commission. The third opposite party assured him that 25% of the loan amount will be given as subsidy and the loan amount will be released through the second opposite party. The petitioner applied for a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- but the third opposite party sanctioned Rs. 5,00,000/- only. The third opposite party released the allotted loan -2- amount through second opposite party with an interest @ 13.60% p.a. On 15..8..2005 by creating mortgage of his property. The second opposite party intimated the petitioner that they have sent claim for subsidy to their Trivandrum cantonment Branch. The petitioner regularly repaid the loan amount in installments by remitting it in to his account in the second opposite party’s branch. In 2006 and 2007 he regularly approached the second opposite party for getting the subsidy amount. On 1..2..2008 also, the petitioner enquired about the same and second opposite party intimated that reminders are sent by them to the third opposite party regarding the release of subsidy amount. The second opposite party handed over a copy of the reminder dt: 17..1..2008 in which they admitted that a letter from the cantonment branch was misplaced. From the letter it can be seen that they are submitting copies again to the third opposite party. As the second opposite party had not submitted the relevant documents in time the petitioner lost the subsidy amount Rs. 1,25,000/-. According to the petitioner he availed loan by paying service charges to the second opposite party and the act of opposite parties in not releasing the subsidy amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence the petitioner filed this petition claiming the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The first, second and third opposite parties entered appearance. The first and second opposite parties has not filed any version where as the third opposite party filed version. The third opposite party filed version with the following main contentions. -3- 1) In the scheme “Rural Employment Generation Programme”(REGP), financial assistance is in the form of margin money to those who have availed loan through scheduled/commercial banks for specified rural and village industries and applied in the prescribed format. The margin money claim applications should be forwarded within 3 months from the date of release of first installment of the loan by the financing branch to the nodal branch of the concerned bank at State/Regional level. 2) From 1..4..2006 onwards the margin money claim must be submitted by the financing branch within 15 days from the first disbursement of the loan under each REGP project to the nodal branch of the bank who in turn should not only settle the claim within the next 15 days but also include the project in the monthly progress report of the month and report to KVIC. 3) From 22..10..2007 onwards the time limit for submission of margin money claim from financing branch to nodal branch is 30 days and from nodal branch to KVIC offices is 30 days. In respect of any delay over and above 60 days the state/divisional directors are authorized to permit the settlement of claim up to additional 30 days. 4) The third opposite party has not received any margin money claim papers in respect of the complainant . Letter No. TRK:06:2008 Dtd: 17..1..2008 sent by Senior Manager, Kottayam was received by the third opposite party. In the letter it is stated that the Bank has sent a claim to their -4- cantonment branch and it was returned for resubmission along with some additional particular and due to misplacement of the letter the Bank could not resubmit the claim. 5) At the time of issuing the said letter by the bank the REGP scheme was over and the fund allotted for the scheme was also disbursed. The case was referred to the Zonal Committee as a belated margin money claim and no decision is taken so far. 6) The complainant has no right to claim any subsidy, compensation or cost as his claim was not submitted in time. Hence the third opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them. Points for considerations are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? ii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and Exts. A1 to A3. Point No. 1 It is not in dispute that the third opposite party sanctioned a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five lakh) and the second opposite party granted the loan amount to the petitioner on 15..8..2005. It is also not in dispute that the subsidy amount is Rs. 1,25,000/-. The third opposite party in their version stated that the margin money claim applications should be forwarded within three months from the date of release of first installment of the loan by the financing branch to the nodal branch of the concerned bank at state/regional level and -5- from 1..4..2006 the time limit for submission of margin money claim is 15 days and from 22..10..2007 onwards the time limit is 30 days. In this instant case the loan amount was granted on 15..8..2005 and therefore as per the above mentioned third opposite party’s statement the second opposite party must have submitted the margin money claim before 15th November, 2005. But nothing is placed on record to prove that the second opposite party had submitted the claim form in time. The petitioner produced a letter issued by the second opposite party to the third opposite party Dtd: 17..01..2008 and it is marked as Ext. A3. On scanning Ext. A3, it is clear that the cantonment branch had returned the margin money claim for resubmission along with some additional particulars. The second opposite party admits in Ext. A3 letter that they could not re-submit the subsidy claim along with the additional information called for due to the misplacement of the letter from cantonment branch. From the facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that there is imperfection, shortcoming and inadequacy in the manner of performance by the second opposite party. So, we hold the second opposite party deficient in service. The third opposite party in their version contented that the REGP scheme is over and there is no fund for disbursing belated margin money claims. They further contented that the case is under consideration of central office of KVIC and no decision is taken on the belated margin money claim. The genuine margin money claim of the petitioner fell into such a dilemma only because of the deficient act of the second opposite party. In our view the second opposite party is liable to compensate the mental agony and monetory loss suffered by the petitioner. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 Petitioner filed an IA praying to allow him to remit the entire loan amount excluding the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-. That IA was heard and allowed. The petitioner submitted that the entire loan amount excluding the subsidy amount was remitted and thus the loan account was closed.. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not liable to remit Rs. 1,25,000/-. Third opposite party in their version stated that the margin money claim is under consideration -6- of Central Office of KVIC and no decision is taken on the same. If the claim is processed in favour of the petitioner the second opposite party will be entitled for the subsidy amount. In view of the findings in point No. 1 , the petition is allowed. The second opposite party will pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation to the petitioner for the mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the petitioner along with a litigation cost of Rs. 2000/-. If the dispute regarding the release of subsidy to the petitioner is disposed in favour of the petitioner, the second opposite party will be at liberty to take the subsidy amount. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of its copy failing which the above mentioned compensation and cost will carry interest @ 9% p.a till realization. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member. Sd/- APPENDIX Documents of the Petitioner: Ext. A1: Copy of loan application Ext. A2: Copy of loan sanction memorandum Ext. A3: Copy of letter Dtd: 17..1..2008 Documents of the Opposite party: Nil. By Order, Senior Superintendent. amp/ 6cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
