Learned counsel for the appellant has already  heard previously. But today  he is absent. However, it is matter of 2005. We are inclined to dispose of the matter on merit.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                The unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant has availed a PMRY loan of Rs.50,000/- from OP No.1  to set up sale & service of Diesel Pump sets in the year 1995-96 being  duly sponsored by D.I.C.,Kalahandi. It is alleged inter-alia that OP No.1 illegally charged interest  on subsidy amount of Rs.7500/- w.e.f. 21.01.1997 till 30.09.1999. It is also averred that  OP No.1 deliberately reduced the drawing power of the complainant in his cash credit  limit @ Rs.608/- per month from the very first month of sanction of the said cash credit limit. It is further alleged that the OP No.1 illegally charged interest on the loan amount during moratorium period  though there is clear instruction to pay interest after the moratorium period. Due to such deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant suffered financial loss in the business and also got mental agony. So, the complaint was filed.

4.            The  OP filed written version stating that the subsidy was received on 20.07.1999 w,.e.f. 21.01.1997. The interest  was  charged on the subsidy at that time but it reversed  on 07.01.2000. Further it is averred that they have not reduced any drawing power under  cash credit limit. It is also averred that there is agreement between  complainant and the OP to charge interest  during moratorium  period for which it was charged and  the loss was computed. Thus, it is stated that they have not done any deficiency in service.

5.              After  hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                                        “We accordingly order that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.7500/-(Rupees Seven thousand five hundred) together with interest thereof from 21.1.1997 till actual payment and the rate of interest should be the rate as fixed by the Opposite Parties N.1 & 2  on the loan account of the complainant. The Opposite Parties are also liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand) towards compensation as hold above  and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards cost of the litigation to the complainant. The above order has to be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The case is disposed of accordingly. “

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted in appeal memo that  learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the  written version of the OP with proper perspectives. According to him the  action has been taken as per principle available by the RBI and there is no any violation of such rule. He also submitted that at  the time of taking loan interest was being charged on the loan amount but learned District Forum ought to have considered such fact. He also submitted that as per agreement  there is no error in  their deficiency of service. However, learned District Forum has not considered  the  above facts but passed the order without any evidence.  It is submitted  by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant has asked for enhancing the cash credit limit but  there is no repayment of cash credit limit for which learned District Forum ought to have applied judicial mind   to such facts. It is also  submitted that the complainant has not produced  all the appropriate materials to  allow his claim. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.             Considered the submission of learned counsel for  appellant, appeal memo, perused the DFR and  impugned order.

8.               It is admitted fact that the complainant has availed the PMRY loan for Rs.50,000/- for the establishment of sale and service of diesel pump.  It is not in dispute that interest was charged on subsidy  in 1997. It is clear that  the subsidy amount is limited amount. After deduction of  subsidy amount, the last installment was disbursed  by the bank. It is also revealed from pleadings of parties that  no interest should be  charged on sanction of loan disbursed.   There is provision for the interest not to be charged on subsidy portion of loan in the instant case but OP took plea that  this being  a loan for the year 1996, interest  was charged. Of course this being against law,   obviously deficiency in service on  the part of the OP is proved by complainant.  

9.       So far reduction of cash credit limit  the complainant has not filed any document to prove same. The hypothecation agreement is also filed. In accordance with the agreement, the cash credit limit has been extended. The other allegation with regard to  sanction  of loan after moratorium period, in fact there is no such agreement filed by the complainant to prove  that the interest would  be charged only after moratorium period. Be that as it may, the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP as per  discussion made  above and as such this Commission is of the view that the learned District  Forum has discussed the material on record on right perspective and passed the order. Therefore, is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order is thus  confirmed.

           Consequently,the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.           

           Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

           DFR be sent back forthwith.