Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/412/2022

Vijender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Retail Assets Central Processing Centre (RACPC) - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Bhardwaj

01 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/412/2022
Date of Institution	:	08/04/2022
Date of Decision	:	01/07/2024

 

1. Vijender Singh, aged 57 years s/o Lt. Sh. Jai Kishan r/o House No.2018, G.B.P. Crest 2, Village Bhago Majra, Distt. Mohali.
2. Mrs. Anita Singh alias Anita Kumari, aged 53 years w/o Vijender Singh, r/o House No.2018, G.B.P. Crest 2, Village Bhago Majra, Distt. Mohali.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1. Retail Assets Central Processing Centre (RACPC), State Bank of India, SCO No.101-102, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, Pin 160017, through its Area General Manager.
2. State Bank of India, Branch Office, SCO Nos.2915-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainants
	:	Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Vijender Singh & Mrs. Anita Singh, 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 in the year 2017, complainants had taken loan of ₹22.00 lacs from Indiabulls for the purchase of a plot and construction of a residential house bearing No.2018, G.B.P. Crest, Village : Bhago Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali. Thereafter, complainants requested the OPs to take over said loan from Indiabulls and vide arrangement letter dated 11.9.2017 (Annexure C-2), OPs took over the same.  The complainants requested the OPs to grant benefits under credit linked subsidy scheme as per Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (hereinafter referred to as “PMAY”) against the initial loan account.  Complainants also submitted a certificate dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure C-3) certifying that the complainants have not claimed/availed subsidy scheme under PMAY.  When the complainants did not get any response from the OPs, they submitted a representation dated 9.2.2022 (Annexure C-4) with the OPs requesting them to explain the reasons for not granting the said benefit.  In reply, vide email dated 10.2.2022 (Annexure C-5) OPs intimated the complainants that in take over cases from other banks, said subsidy is not being provided. Complainants again submitted a detailed representation dated 28.2.2022 (Annexure C-6) with the OPs, but, the same reply was again given by the OPs vide email (Annexure C-7). In this manner, the rejection of the claim of complainants by the OPs through Annexure C-5 & C-6 is absolutely illegal, unjust and arbitrary as it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainants have never availed the aforesaid interest subvention benefit under the scheme either from the first financier/Indiabulls or from the OPs and the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is further alleged that the complainants fall within the definition of a consumer as provider under the Act.  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 written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action.  It is admitted that the complainants had firstly taken loan from Indiabulls and later on, on their request, same was taken over by OPs.  However, it is alleged that when the complainants requested for subsidy claim under PMAY, they were duly informed by sending replies dated 10.2.2022 and 5.3.2022 that as per the current instructions from the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs (MoHUA) take over/balance transfer loans are not eligible for PMAY (U) subsidy and despite of knowing this fact, complainants have filed the present false consumer complaint against the OPs.  On merits, 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.
3. In replication, complainants re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

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 originally obtained loan of ₹22.00 lacs from Indiabulls in the year 2017 and later on switched over the same with the OPs, as is also evident from the arrangement letter (Annexure C-2) and the complainants had not availed/claimed benefit under the Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (CLSS) against the loan from Indiabulls, as is also evident from the certificate (Annexure C-3) and thereafter complainants had requested the OPs for release of said 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 in para 14 of their written version.
   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 do 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 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.”

 

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.

01/07/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member