Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/563/2023

DAL BAHADUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER SINGH SOUNDH

03 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/563/2023
Date of Institution	:	21/11/2023
Date of Decision	:	03/09/2024

 

1. Mr. Dal Bahadur s/o late Sh. Mahavir Singh, resident of House No.2265, Sector 123, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2. Smt. Kusum w/o Sh. Dal Bahadur, resident of House No.2265, Sector 123, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1. Punjab National Bank M.C. Office Building Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, SCO 31-42, Sector 17B, Bank Square, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
3. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited, Corporate Office : HUDCO Bhawan, Core 7-A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 through its authorized signatory/incharge.

2^nd Address :

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ld., (HUDCO), Regional Office :-Shreyas Chamber, 2^nd Floor, 175, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai 40001 Maharashtra through authorized signatory/incharge.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sagar Bathla, Advocate for complainants (thr.VC)
	:	Sh. Ajay Sapehia, Advocate for OPs 1 & 2
	:	Sh. Gursher Singh Bhandal, Advocate for OP-3.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Dal Bahadur and Smt. Kusum, complainants against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that the complainants had availed a joint loan from OPs 1 & 2 i.e. home + construction loan for an amount of ₹27,00,000/- and copy of loan documents are Ex.C-1 Colly. At the time of availing loan, complainants were eligible for subsidy to the tune of ₹2,50,000/- under the Pardhan Mantri Awas Yojna (PMAY).  On 22.10.2020, complainants had provided all requisite documents alongwith affidavit to OPs 1&2 after which OPs generated customer ID and assured the complainants that their application has been accepted and shortly an amount of ₹2,50,000/- would be credited in their account.  After waiting for sufficient time, when subsidy amount was not transferred in the account of complainants, they enquired about the status of subsidy from the OPs and it was assured to the complainants that the application is under process and consideration of OP-3. The complainants again visited the office of OP-1 and they were again assured by the OPs that the subsidy amount would be credited shortly in their account. On this, complainants through their counsel sent legal notice (Ex.C-2) to the OPs to which reply (Ex.C-3) was sent by OP-3. Thereafter the complainants requested OPs 1 & 2 numerous times, but, nothing has been done by them. In this manner, aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written versions.
3. In their joint written version, OPs 1 & 2, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of facts.  However, it is admitted that the complainants had availed loan from the answering OPs for the sum of ₹27.00 lacs and the same was sanctioned by the answering OPs against the estimated cost of construction of ₹34.18 lacs for the area to be constructed measuring 2499.96 sq.ft. whereas total construction to be made by the  complainants was 3860.63 sq.ft. with total covered area 3749.94 sq.ft. At that time, complainants had also mortgaged the property by depositing the title deed.  In fact, complainants were aware of the fact that their house was to be constructed over the area measuring 3749.94 sq.ft. which is equal to 350 sq.meters (approx.) which was not covered under the subsidy category and complainants had wrongly applied for the subsidy. Even otherwise, if the area for construction is considered as 2499.96 sq.ft., that too is equal to 233 sq.meters and the same is again not covered under the scheme. Copies of affidavit filed by the complainants is Annexure OP/5, sanction letter is Annexure OP/6,  relevant circulars issued by the bank relating to PMAY is Annexure OP/7 and income proof supplied by the complainants is Annexure OP/8.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainants is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In its written version, OP-3, inter alia took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts and mis-joinder of parties.  It is alleged that OP-3 has nothing to do with the case of the complainants since there is no MoU for PMAY CLSS between the answering OP and OP-1 for channelizing the Govt. of India subsidy to the concerned beneficiary. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainants is denied. The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainants to rebut the stand of the OPs.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainants had obtained loan of ₹27.00 lacs from OP 1 & 2 for construction of house, as is also evident from sanction letter (Annexure OP-6) and thereafter complainants had requested the OPs for release of subsidy claim, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainants fall under the definition of a consumer and they are entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint as the complainants have been claiming themselves to be consumer under the Act whereas the said fact has been denied by the OPs.
   2. Learned counsel for the complainants contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the complainants had availed the services from the OPs for consideration by taking loan from them, complainants being consumers of the OPs are entitled for subsidy under the PMAY scheme.
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that as the law is settled on this point that person claiming subsidy does not fall under the definition of consumer and the aforesaid question has already been answered by the Hon’ble National Commission as well as Hon’ble State Commission in various orders, the consumer complaint of the complainants, being not consumers, is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.  In support of his argument, learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank & Anr., R.P. No.4894 of 2012 decided on 8.2.2013 by the Hon’ble National Commission in which it was held that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a ‘consumer’, as the subsidy is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the remedy does not lie under the Act by filing a complaint and that he can seek relief, if any, from a Civil Court or some other Forum, as per law.
   4. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in Madan Lal Vs. Punsup Gas service & Ors., R.P. No.3382 of 2016 decided on 27.2.2017. Learned counsel for the OPs has further relied upon Deepinder Singh & Anr. Vs. The Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. & Ors, R.P. No.1109 of 2014 decided on 24.1.2020 by the Hon’ble National Commission and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“6.    From the facts of the case and from the prayer of the complaint, it is clear that the main issue to be decided in the present case is about the release of amount of subsidy. The issue of subsidy cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum as has been held by the National Commission in the case of Chaudhary Ashok Yadav vs The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and Anr., Revision petition no.4894 of 2012 decided on 08.02.2013, wherein it has been held that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a 'consumer', as the subsidy is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and his remedy does not lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by filing a complaint and that he can seek relief from a civil court, or some other forum, as per law.”

 

5. Moreover, as it is an admitted case of the complainants that the total built up area of the subject building is 3749.94 sq.ft., which is equal to 348.38 sq. meters and the same being more than the limit of even MIG-II, which is only upto 200 sq.meters, the case of complainants, even otherwise, does not fall under the scheme.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, and the ratio of law laid down in the cases of Chaudhary Ashok Yadav (supra), Madan Lal (supra) & Deepinder Singh (supra), it is safe to hold that the complainants are not consumers and the present consumer complaint is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  The complainants are, however, at liberty to approach the competent court of law for the redressal of their grievances. 
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/09/2024	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/-
	[Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/-
	[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member