Complaint filed on: 04-12-2020

                                                      Disposed on: 27-10-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.76/2020

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

PRESENT

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

Complainants: -

1. Smt.Yashodha

W/o late Y.N.Shivananjaiah

Aged about 69 years

2. Sri.Ramesh.Y.S.

S/o late Y.N.Shivananjaiah

Aged about 55 years

Both complainants are residing at Yaliyur village and post, Uthridurga hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru district

 (By Sri.Raj Kumar, Advocates)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), 24, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, Delhi-110008
2. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) 46, NABARD towers, Kempegowda Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560009
3. The Chairman & MD

Canara Bank, 112, JC Road, Halsurpete, Nagarathpete, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560002

4. The Senior Manager, Canara Bank, TAPCMS building, 1333/1292, Opp. Municipal office, M.Road, Kunigal-572 130
5. Canara Bank,

Regional office, 3^rd Floor, Maruthi Towers, BH Road, Beside SIT College, Tumakuru,

Karnataka-572103

Represented by its Manager

(OP No.1 & 2-by Sri.G.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Advocate)

(OP No.3 to 5-by Sri.Jagadeeshappa, Advocate)

       ORDER

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to direct the OP Nos.1 to 5 to pay a sum of Rs.12,80,000-00 along with interest @ 14% p.a. from December-2014 as the complainants were supposed to receive subsidy from the OPs. The complainant further prayed to award of a sum of Rs.50,000-00 towards their mental agony, pain and suffering, Rs.50,000-00 as compensatory costs and Rs.20,000-00 towards litigation expenses.

2. The complainant no.2 is the son of complainant no.1. The OP Nos.1 and 2 are the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, New Delhi and Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as NABARD) and the OP Nos.3 to 5 is Canara Bank regional office and branch office situated at Bengaluru and Kunigal, Tumakuru district.

3. It is the case of complainants that they had availed loan of Rs.11,25,000-00 and Rs.13,50,000-00 from the OP No.4 Canara Bank branch at Kunigal under financial scheme of NABARD known as “Integrated Scheme for Development of Small Ruminants and Rabbits (IDSRR)”. Under the said scheme it was the duty of OP No.4 Canara Bank to make an application to claim capital subsidy under “Integrated Scheme for Dairy Entrepreneurship Development Scheme” from the NABARD. The complainants were entitled for a sum of Rs.12,80,000-00 capital subsidy claimed by the bank from NABARD. The OP No.4 has failed to submit an application to NABARD claiming subsidy to the loan of complainants as such there is deficiency of service from the OPs  hence, this complaint.

4. OP Nos.1 and 2 NABARD in response to the notice appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version contending that the Canara Bank has submitted an application for subsidy which came to be rejected by this OP since the subsidy has to be granted to schedule caste communities who have taken loan from May-2014 onwards. The complainants are belonging to general category as such the application submitted by the OP No.4 came to be rejected. The next contention of OP Nos.1 and 2 is that the subsidy offered to the loanee is not falling under the category of service as such the complainants are not consumers.

5. The OP Nos.3 to 5 have appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version admitting that the complainants had availed loan for Goat Breeding, but it denied that the complainants were entitled for a sum of Rs.12,80,000-00 as capital subsidy and the bank has not claimed same from the NABARD. The OPs have claimed subsidy from the NABARD but the application came to be rejected since the complainants were not eligible for subsidy since the subsidy was offered by the Government of India to the category of schedule caste only. The OP Nos.3 to 5 have submitted the claim application dated 15-10-2014 to the NABARD as such there is no lapse in claiming and following up to claim with NABARD. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs. The complainants have not cleared the loans and now they are chronics defaulter. The complainants have filed this false case with an intention to avoid repaying the loan amount. On the above grounds, the OP Nos. 3 to 5 asked to dismiss the complaint with cost.      

          6. The complainant No.2 has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked Exs.P1 to P19 documents. On behalf of OP Nos.3 to 5 one Sri.Raju.K, Manager of OP No.4 bank filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.R1 to R10 documents. On behalf of OP Nos.1 and 2 one Smt.Keerthi Prabha.N w/o Sridhara.N, District Development Manager, Tumakuru filed affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.R11 and R12.   

          7. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainants and OP Nos.1 and 2 and in addition to written brief submitted by the complainants and OP Nos.3 to 5 and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainants prove that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in not submitting the subsidy claim to NABARD?

2)      Are complainants entitled to reliefs sought for?  

8. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the negative   

Point No.2: In the negative for the below  

REASONS

          9. Point No.1 and 2: The learned counsel for the complainants have vehemently argued that NABARD  is formal party but Canara bank has submitted the subsidy claim to NABARD in the year 2015 and on account of delay the claim is rejected by NABARD. As against this, the learned counsel for OP Nos.1 and 2 urged that the subsidy claim is provided by the Government of India and claims are differ from year to year. During the year 2014 Government of India has provided finance to NABARD to sanction subsidy to the schedule caste community only but not to any other category. The learned counsel for OP Nos.1 and 2 further submitted that the subsidy is free service as such the complainants are not consumers under the CP Act. The OP Nos.3 to 5 contention is that the bank has submitted the claim application on 15-10-2014 but the NABARD has rejected as the complainants were not eligible for capital subsidy since they belonging to general category.

          10. The OP Nos.3 to 5 Canara bank has not disputed the availment of two loans by the complainants for goat breeding in the year 2014 and 2015. The OP No.4 has issued Ex.P12 sanction memorandum dated 19-9-2014  to the complainant No.1 for dairy farming a sum of Rs.11,25,000-00 (goat breeding). The second loan a sum of Rs.10,00,000-00 was sanctioned by Canara Bank  on 28-2-2015. The main contention of complainants is that the Canara Bank has not submitted the subsidy application to NABARD immediately after sanction of loan. The complainants have produced Ex.P8 claim application sent by the Canara Bank dated 15-10-2014 to NABARD, Bengaluru for release of capital subsidy a sum of Rs.6,55,000-00. Later on clarification sought by the NABARD the Canara Bank has submitted in proper form on 8-10-2015. Therefore, there is no force in the arguments of complainants that the bank was negligent in submitting the subsidy claim for sanction by NABARD. The Canara bank has submitted subsidy claim within one month after the sanction of loan to NABARD on 15-10-2014.

          11. The NABARD has produced Ex.R12 Inter office memorandum dated 18/20-11-2015 and OP Nos.3 to 5 Canara bank has also produced Ex.R5 letter dated 18-12-2015 addressed by NABARD to the Officer-in-Charge, controlling offices of Commercial Banks. Under this memorandum it is stated by NABARD that Government of India has advised EDEG component of the National Livestock Mission only in respect of Scheduled caste category. Loans sanctioned by bank from 21-5-2014 onwards [the date of Government of India circular on National Livestock Mission (LMN)] are eligible as per NLM guidelines and rate of subsidy for Scheduled caste category ranges between 33.33.% to 60% depending on the type of area as detailed under. The NABARD has sent Ex.P6 letter dated 10-4-2017 to Canara Bank, Bengaluru stating that they are returning claims of complainants herein pertains to 2015 general category. As per Government of India guidelines for the period 2015-16 General and Schedule Tribe category are not eligible hence, we are unable to process the claims. The complainants had availed Goat Breeding loans from the Canara bank in the month of Sept.2014 and Feb.2015. NABARD in Ex.R12 circular clearly stated loans sanctioned from 21-5-2014 onwards under National Livestock Mission only for Scheduled caste category are entitled for subsidy. In view of the NABARD circular the complainants are not eligible for subsidy since the Canara bank has sanctioned loan to the complainants in the month of September, 2014 four months after Government of India circular issued on National Livestock Mission. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of OP Nos.3 to 5 since they have submitted the subsidy claim on 15-10-2014 within one month from the date of sanction of loan.

          12. The learned counsel for OP Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the complainants are not consumers and in support of their submission relied upon the case of Chaudhary Ashok Yadav V/s the Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and others Review Petition No.4894 of 2012 dated 8-2-2013 wherein the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi held that the subsidy offered to be paid is not “service” as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer. The complaint deserves to be dismissed since there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of OPs Canara bank as it has forwarded subsidy claim on 15-10-2014 within one month from the date of sanction of loan. Further, the complainants were not eligible for subsidy as Government of India circular the loan has been sanctioned to them after 21-5-2014 and only Scheduled caste category were eligible for subsidy. The complainants belonging to general category as such even there is delay in submitting the subsidy application they were not eligible to claim subsidy as loan was sanctioned in September, 2014 as Government of India has issued circular stating that other than scheduled caste category are not entitled to  subsidy who have availed loan after 21-5-2014. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed without costs.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainants and opposite parties at free of cost.