Haryana

Ambala

CC/102/2015

Baljit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.N.B - Opp.Party(s)

Gian Singh Sandhu

30 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                           Complaint No.:102 of 2015.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 15.04.2015.

                                                           Date of Decision: 30.10.2017.

 

Baljit Kaur widow of late Karnail Singh son of Shri Prem Singh resident of village Majri P.O. Tharwa, Tehsil & District Ambala.

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.Punjab National Bank Durana, Tehsil & District Ambala through its Manager.

2.Regional Office, Nabard (Bank) Sector-34 Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

                                                                             …Opposite Party.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

                                                                  

BEFORE:                    SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                                                            MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

Present:                Sh.G.S.Sandhu, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.R.L.Mundan, counsel for OP No.1.                                    Sh.D.K.Garg, Development Manager for OP No.2.         

 

ORDER:

 

                             Brief facts of the present complaint are that the husband of the complainant had taken loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from OPs for purchasing of five buffaloes on 18.02.2012. The rate of interest was 12.75 % per annum and the loan was to be repaid in 57 monthly installments. The loan amount has already been paid. Husband of the complainant expired on 13.11.2013 and thereafter the complainant also paid some installments alongwith interest. As per the husband of the complainant there was subsidy of Rs.56250/- which was to be paid by OP No.2 on the recommendation of OP No.1 as per subsidy scheme. OP No.1 was to send the case for granting subsidy to OP No.2 but it has not done so. The complainant requested the OPs for grant of subsidy but to no avail, therefore, she got served legal notice upon the Ops but all fell on deaf ears. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                          On notice OPs appeared  and Op No.1 filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as at the time of taking loan late Sh.Karnail Singh son of Prem Singh had tendered an affidavit dated 18.08.2011 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that he would not claim any subsidy, therefore, there was no privity of contract either with complainant or with her husband during his lifetime and after his death. The husband of the complainant had availed loan for purchase of milk cattle and for dairy business after mortgaging his land besides executing hypothecation agreement, supplementary agreement dated 22.03.2012. The subject matter relates to commercial activities and therefore, the complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint.  The loanee had agreed to pay the loan amount alongwith interest @ 3 % above base rate plus 0.50 Term Premia therewith a minimum of 14.25 % par annum to be calculated with yearly rests. Objections about maintainability of the complaint, cause of action, suppression of material facts and estoppal have also been taken.  In evidence, the Op No.1 has tendered affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3. OP No.2 did not file any reply to the complaint, however, in evidence it has tendered affidavit Annexure RY and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

4.                          The main dispute in the present complaint is that the OPs are not releasing the subsidy amount to the complainant as the loan was taken by her husband for purchasing of buffaloes and for dairy products.

5.                          The OPs have come with the plea vide affidavit Annexure R2 the husband of the complainant, who had taken loan from the Ops, has mentioned that he would not claim any subsidy amount in connection with the loan to be granted as per scheme floated by Central Government/NABARD under DEDS (Dairy Entrepreneurship Development Scheme). Perusal of the affidavit Annexure R2 further reveals that the deponent had mentioned in para No.3 of the Annexure R2 that the deponent (Karnail Singh) would not claim any subsidy from NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development) against the loan of dairy.  The counsel for the OPs further taken the objection that the account has been closed on 14.01.2015 as the whole of the loan amount has been paid, therefore, there no relationship between the complainant and OPs exist and the complainant does not come under the definition of consumer.

6.                          This Forum is of the view that before proceeding further it is desirable to decide the question whether the complainant has come under the definition of the consumer because the OPs have specifically taken the plea that there is no relationship remained between the complainant and OPs as the loan amount has already been paid and the account has already been closed.

7.                          We have gone through the case file. Perusal of Annexure R3 reveals that the bank had certified that the account bearing No.105000AF00001616 which was being maintained in the name of deceased Karnail Singh has been closed on 14.01.2015 after receipt of entire loan amount and interest and the bank has further certified that no loan account and saving account has been maintained in the name of deceased Karnail Singh and Mrs.Baljeet Kaur (complainant) in PNB Durana Branch i.e. OP No.1.

                             Perusal of the case file reveals that the present complaint has been filed on 15.04.2015 whereas the account of the deceased Karnail Singh was already closed on 14.01.2015 which shows that it was very much in the knowledge of the complainant and even then the complainant has given the legal notice dated 28.01.2015 to the Ops for releasing the subsidy amount after closing the account of the deceased vide Annexure C4.  The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant titled as Vandan Pareshkumar Manghita Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Limited 2014 (4) CLT 254 (NC), Mala Kaur Vs. Competent Authority & Others 2014 (4) CLT 139 (Chhattishgarh State Commission) and Shibam Muri Workshop Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others 2014 (4) CLT 448  are not applicable to present case, therefore, same are being distinguished.

                             From the above said facts and circumstances of the present case it is clear that the present complaint before this Forum is not maintainable because no relationship exit between the parties at the time of filing of the present complaint, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter qua subsidy on merits. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint being not maintainable before this Forum under Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act and thus the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs with a liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate authority/court on the same cause of action.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted  in terms of the  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583. The complainant can take all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and the office is also directed to hand-over the same, if any, attached with the complaint against proper receipt & identification and after placing photocopy of the same on the case file. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.                                                                 Dated: 30.10.2017

                                                                    (D.N.Arora)                                                                                                           President                                 (Anamika Gupta) (Pushpender Kumar)    Distt.Consumer Disputes                   Member          Member                 Redressal Forum, Ambala.