Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/1155

SMT.MEERA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB & SINDH BANK - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1155 OF 2014

 (Arising out of order dated 30.05.2014 passed in C.C.No.110/2014 by District Commission, Bhind)

 

                                                    

SMT. MEERA DEVI.                                                                                              …         APPELLANT.

 

                Versus

 

MANAGER, PUNJAB & SINDH BANK, BHIND.                                                     …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                 :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :       MEMBER 

 

                                      O R D E R

 

01.07.2024

 

     Shri M. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

     Shri H. R. Mutreja, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                  The complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhind (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.110/2014 whereby the complaint filed by her has been dismissed.

2.                By filing this appeal the complainant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the District Commission has wrongly erred in dismissing the complainant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/appellant argued that the complainant took loan under the government scheme from the opposite party bank for cattle farming

-2-

(Buffalo palan). The subsidy given by the government was also adjusted towards loan account. It is alleged that instead of 12.5% interest the bank charged interest at the rate of 35% on the loan amount. He argued that the District Commission without considering the aforesaid aspect has wrongly dismissed the complaint.

3.                On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-bank argued that the complainant took loan under the beneficiary scheme of the government under which she had also availed subsidy facility. Since the loan granted to the complainant under the scheme of the government for welfare of consumers of below poverty line, therefore, the bank charged the interest as per norms and terms and conditions. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the bank.  He prayed for dismissing the appeal.

4.                Learned counsel for the post office further stated that the Government and the Government Officers, by Section 6 of the ‘Indian Post Office Act’ are exempted from all responsibilities in case of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage caused to the postal article in the course of transmission. 

 

-3-

5.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record we find that the complainant under the beneficiary scheme of the government ‘Swarn Jayanti Shahri Rojgar Yojna’ for the welfare of women and children had obtained loan for a sum of Rs.5lakh from the opposite party-bank for which 60% subsidy was to be given by the Pariyojna Adhikari, Jila Shahri Vikas Adhikaran, Bhind, for the purpose of cattle farming.

6.                The complainant neither filed any copy of scheme nor impleaded the Pariyojna Adhikari as a party to the case. The complainant also did not file any document in order to show that on what conditions the loan was sanctioned and how it was to be repaid. Also the matter relates to subsidy. Hon’ble National Commission on various occasions has held that since the subsidy amount is sent directly to the bank account by the Government and the local bank have very limited role and no deficiency in service can be attributed. It has been further 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 the Act and his remedy does not lie under the Act.

 

-4-

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby affirmed.

8.                In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                                 Member