Order No.  10  dt. 11/07/2019

          The complainant filed this case U/S 12 of C.P. Act against the o.p. with the allegation that the complainant approached the o.p. bank for home loan. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents and papers as per the requirement of the said branch of the bank. Subsequently the Govt. of India, launched a scheme “PRADHAN MANTRI AWAS YOJANA” (hereinafter PMAY). The object of the scheme was for providing assistance to all the eligible families for their houses. The complainant came to know that he is eligible for getting the entire subsidy under the aforesaid PMAY, the complainant along with all the documents as required by bank provided the same and the o.p. nos.1 and 2 disbursed the loan after a long time and no intimation was given to the complainant regarding the application made by him for getting benefit under PMAY. The complainant after submission of all the papers the o.p. issued a bank draft amounting to Rs.12 Lakh in favour of the developer and the Deed of Conveyance was executed and registered on 21/12/2016. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.6 Lakh towards Fixed Deposit and the said amount was taken by the bank as collateral security, the complainant also deposited the original deed. The complainant further stated that the o.p. bank did not consider the interest subsidy benefit under PMAY scheme.           

On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps to pay an amount of Rs.2,67,000/- which was excluded the benefit of the complainant was entitled under PMAY and also prayed for Rs.2 Lakh as compensation and litigation cost.

            The o.p. appeared in this case and filed a petition stating that the case is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. In support of the said contention as the o.p. bank has also relied on some judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble NCDRC and other authorities stating inter alia that in case of dispute regarding subsidy in interest between the parties parties i.e. the herein the complainant and the bank, the complainant cannot be said to be consumer which provide him subsidy in the principal amount itself. The Ld. Lawyer for o.p. also relying upon those decisions categorically stated that the case is not maintainable. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has also filed an amendment petition of complaint and he wanted to incorporate that though the bank paid Rs.12 Lakh to the developer but no sanction letter was provided to the complainant. the bank did not obtain prior consent of the complainant to block the fixed deposit of Rs.6 Lakh  which was purchased from the bank, this is unfair trade practice adopted by the bank.

            On the basis of the said fact the complainant wanted to incorporate other points. The o.p. has also raised objection regarding the amendment petition and vehemently opposed the said prayer. It has been contended by the Ld. Lawyer of the o.p. bank since the claim made by the complainant on the basis of the subsidy to be enjoyed by him cannot come within the purview of C.P. Act. Therefore, the amendment sought for, if allowed, will totally change the nature and character of the case. Accordingly, the o.ps prayed for dismissal of the said petition.

            Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the complainant obtained loan from the bank and the o.ps after going through the document submitted by the complainant sanctioned the loan and the Rs.12 Lakh was sanctioned and a cheque was handed over to the developer. The complainant got the flat in question in the year 2016 and after the lapse of several years the complainant came with this plea that he will be entitled to get the subsidy under PMAY scheme. The complainant in one breath has claimed that he will be entitled to get PMAY benefit by getting subsidy of the interest to be paid by the bank,  the o.p., in another breath he has stated that he got the flat in question in the year 2016 and the same was executed and registered by the vendors in the said year.

            On perusal of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various authorities including Hon’ble NCDRC it appears that, if the complainant seeks the benefit of exemption of interest under PMAY and the said scheme is opened and subsidized by the Govt. of India and in catena of case laws it has been categorically stated that the complainant cannot be termed as consumer as per the C.P. Act. The complainant in the petition of complaint has categorically stated that he wanted to have the enjoyment of the benefit of the PMAY scheme for which he wanted to have the exemption of interest but the complainant subsequently by filing a petition has tried to make out a third case by stating that he did not receive the sanction letter and there was unfair trade practice on the part of the bank. The amendment sought for is a long one which, if allowed, would change the nature and character of the case. Therefore, we are not inclined to allow the petition of amendment as sought for by the complainant. Since earlier we have already held that the complainant is not a consumer as per the C.P. Act for availing benefit as claimed by him under PMAY scheme. Therefore, we hold that the case filed by the complainant is not maintainable.

            Accordingly, the petition filed by the o.p is hereby allowed and rejected the petition filed by the complainant for amendment of the petition of complaint.

            Hence, it is ordered,

            That the Case No. 24/2019 id dismissed by holding that the same is not maintainable as per C.P. Act.