IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 30th day of December, 2008
Filed on 28.01.2008
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 13/2008
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.A.K.Chandradas 1. The Project Director (PAU)
Mnnamparambil Veedu Jilla Panchayath, Alappuzha
Mannancherry Panchayath
Aryad North P.O. 2. The Block Development
Alappuzha – 688 542 Officer, Aryad Block
(By Adv. C.S. Hemalal Kalavoor
3. The Manager, Indian Overseas
Bank, Komalapuram Branch
Pathirappally
(By Adv. S. Premalatha)
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case is as follows:- The case of the complainant is that the complainant on 13th March 2001 availed an IRDP loan of Rs.2500/- from the 3rd opposite party for the purpose of self employment. The complainant was assured that towards the repayment of the entire loan amount, a subsidy of Rs.7500/-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) would be adjusted in the loan account. The complainant cleared off the said loan. pursuant to which a fresh loan of Rs.15000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) was given out to the complainant. No subsidy was offered to the latter loan. Despite the complainant paid off the subsidy offered loan, the complainant was provided mere Rs. 4500/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred only) as against the offered Rs.7500/-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred only). All the other debtors who had availed loans with the complainant were duly afforded the avowed subsidy. The complainant is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only). The 2nd opposite party, on complaints repeated demand impressed upon him that the balance subsidy amount would be adjusted towards the payment of the second loan. The 2nd opposite party did not make it point to comply with the said assurance and the complainant approached Asst. Development Commissioner. Alappuzha. On 6th July, 2007, the said commissioner, directed the first opposite party to take needful steps to cause the complainant obtain the balance subsidy which he was duly entitled to. The direction of the Asst. Development Commissioner fell on deaf ears and the complainant lodged a complaint with the 2nd opposite party as to this. The copy of the order of the Asst. Development Commissioner was also produced. The 2nd opposite party caused the complainant walk to and fro repeatedly. The complainant sustained indescribable mental agony and harassment at the hands of the all the opposite parties. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum praying for compensation and other relief.
2. Notices were sent and the opposite parties turned up. All the opposite parties filed separate version. The contention of the 1st opposite party is that the complainant availed loan not in IRDP scheme but in SGSY scheme. Under this scheme, the subsidy limit is Rs.7500/-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred only), and the said subsidy amount is provided not for a single dose of loan. The complainant can take any number of loans in this scheme, and the subsidy amount of Rs.7500 (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) is not offered to each and every loan. Altogether the maximum amount of Rs.7500.-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) is distributed to a person even if he takes subsequent spell of loans. The duty of the 1st opposite party is to obtain the subsidy for the concerned parties recommended by the Secretary of the Block Panchayath. With regard to the complainant, the recommended amount was caused to provide to him. the 1st opposite party contends. That apart, the Asst. development commissioner is a lower ranked officer to when compared to the 1st opposite party. As such, the contention of the complainant to the effect that the 1st opposite party was directed by the Asst. development commissioner is baseless. The complainant never approached the 1st opposite party. Thus there is no occasion for him to sustain mental agony at the hands of the 1st opposite party. If the complainant avails another loan subject to the condition of the said scheme, the complainant is entitled to the balance amount of the offered subsidy. There for the complaint is not maintainable and is only to be dismissed.
3. The 2nd opposite party contends that the subsidy claim of the complainant was sent to the concerned bank. The complainant never approached the 2nd opposite party there after. The 2nd opposite party never inflicted any injury to the complainant, asserts the 2nd opposite party. The complaint is only to be dismissed.
4. The contention of the 3rd opposite party is that the complainant was sanctioned only Rs.4500/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred only) by the 2nd opposite party. This opposite party is not responsible for the negligence of the other opposite parties. According to the 3rd opposite party, the complainant availed another loan of Rs.15000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) from the 3rd opposite party. It was not under any scheme that affords subsidy. The complainant defaulted the said loan. and an amount of Rs.11148/-(Rupees eleven thousand one hundred and forty eight only) was due to the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party was impleaded with a view to wriggle out of the proposed legal action to be taken against complainant by the 3rd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party argues. According to this opposite party, the complaint is without any merit and is only to he dismissed.
5. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1 and the documents Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the block development officer was examined as RW1, and the documents Exts.B1 and B2 were marked.
5. Going by the contentions of the parties, the issues come up before us for consideration are:-
1) Whether the complainant availed any loan that offers subsidy?
2) Is so, whether the complainant is entitled to the subsidy amount as claimed?
(3) Relief and cost?
6. We meticulously perused the entire materials put on record by the parties. It appears that the complainant availed two loans from the 3rd opposite party bank. The first one is under SGSY scheme and the other one in general plan. The first one was paid off, but he could receive only Rs.4500/- (Rupees four thousand and five hundred only) as subsidy as against the offered Rs.7500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only). The 1st opposite party affirms that, the subsidy is only a stimulant, and the entire amount of subsidy need not necessarily be availed at the first spell of loan itself. If he takes loan in similar scheme any further he is entitled to the balance subsidy amount. It is note worthy that there is not an iota of evidence to show that the 3rd opposite party was directed by the Asst. commissioner, Alappuzha to take steps in favor of the complainant to obtain the balance subsidy. In addition to this, seemingly the complainant suppressed his availing of another loan from the 3rd opposite party. It is true that he availed the said loan in general plan. Interestingly as per the opposite party the same is in default. We are of the view that, when the 3rd opposite party is in the party array, the complainant could have and should have revealed the said aspect before this Forum. It is to be presumed that the complainant approached this forum with out clean hands. We are constrained to take the view that the present complaint is mere a ruse to escape from the clutches of proposed legal proceedings that could be initiated at any time by the 3rd opposite party. We have no hesitation to hold that the complaint must fail.
For the forgoing facts and findings made herein above, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2008.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - A.K.Chandradas (Wintess)
Ext.A1 - Loan Pass Book
Ext.A2 - Letter dated 6.7.2007
Ext.A3 - Application of the complainant to the Block Development
Officer
Ext.A4 - Complaint of the complainant to the District Collector
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - M.Khalid (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Statement of the Beneficiary Subsidy (Photo copy)
Ext.B2 - Claim statement (Photo copy)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
