Varinder Pal Singh Saini, Member

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called   as 'the Act') against the opposite parties on the allegations that  the opposite party No. 1 is dealing in banking services. The opposite party No. 2 introduced a scheme namely PMEGP Scheme, which provides for granting 25% subsidy in the loan amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to woman who avails loan for setting up their own small project. The said scheme is implemented through the nationalized banks and the Punjab National bank is one of the bank, which implements the scheme of Khadi and Village industries Commission. The complainant is doing the work as beautician and having good knowledge and experience in the above field and in this respect, the complainant had undergone the training of beauty parlour and is holder of certificate issued by Nehru Yuva Kendara Tarn Taran. The complainant came to know about the PMEGP Scheme, which provides for granting 25% subsidy in the loan amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to woman who avails loan for setting up their own business. In the year 2015, the complainant had submitted a proposal with the O.P No.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank Branch Tarn Taran for obtaining a loan under the PMEGP scheme sponsored by O.P No.2 i.e. Khadi and village industries commissions for setting up her own small project of beauty parlour for earning her livelihood. Thereafter, the application of the complainant was considered by the District Task Force Committee held on 12.10.2015. The task force committee has approved the case of the complainant and forwarded the same to the opposite party No.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank, branch Tarn Taran. The complainant has successfully completed "Entrepreneurship Development program (EDP)" Training under PMEGP scheme for the period from 4.3.2016 to 9.3.2016 at Mallian PNB Rseti, Mallian in batch no.152. As such the complainant has completed all the formalities and was eligible for the 25% subsidy upon the loan amount. The bank has approved the loan of the complainant and loan account of the complainant was opened by the bank and in April 2016 the bank has sanctioned and disbursed a term loan of Rs. 2,85,000/- to the complainant under PMEGP scheme for setting up of beauty parlour for the project of cost of Rs.3,00,000/-. Under the said loan scheme, the complainant is entitled to the subsidy of Rs.75,000/- and the complainant has submitted all the required documents in this regard. It was bounden duty on the part of the bank to get subsidy of Rs.75,000/- for the complainant from the Khadi and village industries commission as per the norms settled by the commission. The concerned branch office of the bank had to forward the required papers to the concerned department as such it is the obligation of the bank to get and deposit the subsidy amount i.e. Rs.75,000/- in the account of the complainant.  After the sanctioning of the loan amount, the complainant persistently requesting the officials of the bank that kindly to avail the subsidy amount of the complainant from the concerned commission/department as the complainant is entitled to the same and moreover the complainant has applied for the loan under the PMEGP. At the persistent requests made by the complainant, on 17-09-2018 the bank had sent a correspondence to the Director, District Industries Center Chandigarh for subsidy claim of the complainant. The bank used to linger on the matter on the one and other pretext. The bank has to apply for the subsidy after disbursal of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the loan account of the complainant but the bank has failed to do so. The O.P No.2 used to send various correspondences from time to time to all the financial institutions for dictating the rules and regulations for availing subsidy claim under PMEGP scheme. After introduction of online portal from 1.7.2016, the PMEGP claims are required to be settled through online PMEGP E-portal system. In order to settle PMEGP pending claims a committee is constituted, which conveys meetings periodically to approve old claims. Khadi and village industries commission have requested again and again to nodal officers of the banks for availing the subsidy for the applicants and in this respect, dates were extended for various times to settle all PMEGP pending claims. The Khadi and village industries commission has also sought reports from bank to confirm that there is no pending claims lying with the bank. The O.P bank has not done anything in order to get subsidy claim of the loan amount of the complainant. Anything done by the bank in this regard proved a useless activity as the bank has not done anything in a proper way in order to get subsidy for the complainant.   On 15.5.2019, the State office of Khadi and village industries commission have sent a correspondence to all the banks in Punjab and thereby conveyed to them that upto 30.6.2019, the information of all the old cases is requires to send in the prescribed format to the director, PMEGP Mumbai. As such the above said state office has directed all the banks to send the present details of PMEGP claims in the prescribed format to the state office up to 15.6.2019 and has also made it clear that after 30.6.2019, the office will not be able to do anything for the old cases. The complainant that even after 3 years of availing of the loan, the officials of the bank were not responsible towards their duty and have not paid any heed towards the genuine requests made by the complainant. The O.P No.2 is obliged to release the amount of subsidy i.e Rs.75,000/- in the loan account of the complainant and the same is not given to the complainant due to fault & deficiencies in services on the part of the bank as such the bank is liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant has requested the officials of the bank for several times to look in to the matter but the bank has neither talked about its deficiency in services nor have done anything in order to get subsidy for the loan account of the complainant. The complainant as also sent an application under RTI Act for getting information about the subsidy amount vide application dated 14.10.2019 sent through registered post dated 14.10.2019 but the bank has not replied to the same as such complainant prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 75,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant and also prayed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record attested copy of affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, attested copy of certificate of training in beauty parlour Ex. C-2, Attested copy of matriculation certificate Ex. C-3, Attested copy of correspondence from General Manager to Punjab National Bank Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of application Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of project report Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of under taking Ex. C-7, Attested copy of EDP Certificate under PMEGP Scheme Ex. C-8, Self attested copy of undertaking to bank Ex. C-9, Self attested copy of receipt Ex. C-10, Self attested copy of certificate of undertaking Ex. C-11, Self attested copy of account ledger inquiry Ex. C-12, Self attested copy of account ledger inquiry Ex. C-13, Self attested copy of account ledger inquiry Ex. C-14, Self attested copy of transaction inquiry Ex. C-15, Self attested copy of transaction inquiry Ex. C-16, Attested copy of correspondence dated 23.4.2019 Ex. C-17, Attested copy of correspondence dated 15.5.2019 Ex. C-18, Attested copy of application dated 14.10.2019 Ex. C-19, Postal receipt dated 14.10.2019 Ex. C-20.

2        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties. The opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by interalia pleadings that the opposite party No.1 sanctioned and advanced loan to complainant as per bank rules. Thereafter the opposite party No.1 applied for subsidy vide registered letter dated 17.9.2018 amount to opposite party No.2. The opposite party No. 2 has not responded the letter nor made payment of subsidy amount to opposite party No. 1 who was to credit the subsidy amount to complainant after receiving. So the opposite party no.1 is not at fault rather the opposite party No. 2 has not made payment of subsidy amount better known to opposite party No.2. The opposite party No-2 has not paid the amount of subsidy. The opposite party has claimed subsidy from opposite party No.2 who has not sanctioned the same despite request letter for subsidy was with opposite party no.2. The bank has done its duty for apply the subsidy, so there is no fault of the opposite party No.1. There is no deficiency in services as stated above of opposite party No.1. No cause of action arose against the opposite party No. 1 and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed against the opposite party No. 1.  Alongwith written version, the opposite party No. 1 has placed on record copy of letter dated 17.9.2018 Ex. D-1, Copy of postal receipt Ex. D-2.

3        The opposite party No. 2 did not appear inspite of service, consequently, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte.

4        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and also carefully gone through the record.

5        In the present case, the complainant has applied loan with the opposite party No. 1 and a subsidy on this loan (25%) was to be given by the opposite party No. 2 under PMEGP Scheme. According to complainant, she has fulfilled all the requirements for loan and its subsidy and loan was disbursed to the complainant but the subsidy amount has not been credited by the party No. 2 in her bank account with Punjab National Bank. The opposite party No. 1 appeared in this case and has admitted that the opposite party No.1 (PNB Tarn Taran)sanctioned and advanced loan to complainant as per bank rules. Thereafter the opposite party No.1 applied for subsidy vide registered letter dated 17.9.2018 Ex. D-1 to the opposite party No.2. But the opposite party No. 2 has not responded the letter nor made payment of subsidy amount to opposite party No. 1 who was to credit the subsidy amount to complainant after receiving the same. So the opposite party No.1 is not at fault rather the opposite party no. 2 has not made payment of subsidy amount. The opposite party has claimed subsidy from opposite party no.2 who has not sanctioned the same despite request letter for subsidy was with opposite party No.2. The bank has done its duty for apply the subsidy, so there is no fault of the opposite party No.1. There is no deficiency in services as stated above of opposite party No.1.

6        From the above said facts, it has been established on record that the complainant has availed loan and the opposite party No. 2 has to give subsidy of 25% to the complainant which fact is duly supported by the opposite party No. 1 in its written version. The opposite party No. 1 has also written letter to the opposite party No.2  regarding the matter in question, but the opposite party No. 2 has not given any response to the said letter.

7        The complainant has duly proved on record her case and has also tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-20.  And the evidence led by the complainant on the file goes unchallenged and unrebutted  by opposite party No. 2 as Opposite Party No. 2 is proceeded against exparte in the present complaint and there is no reason on the file as to why the evidence produced by the complainant be not believed. Otherwise also, due notice was issued to the Opposite Party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 did not appear in the Commission in order to contest the complaint which shows that the Opposite Party No. 2 has nothing to say upon the allegations leveled against it by the complainant. As such, the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint and it stands established on record that the complainant is approaching the opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1 and directly several times but the opposite party No. 2 did not care to resolve the matter, not only committed deficiency in service, but also indulged in an unfair trade practice.             

8        In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay 25% of the sanctioned loan amount to the complainant. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite party No. 2 for a long time, therefore, the complainant is also entitled to 15,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 10,000/- as litigation expenses from the opposite party no. 2. Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  The present complaint against the opposite party No. 1 is dismissed. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

16.03.2023