Haryana

StateCommission

A/413/2016

KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMUNDAR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

N.S.JAGDEVA

08 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      413 of 2016

Date of Institution:      11.05.2016

Date of Decision :       08.06.2016

 

Khadi & Village Industries Commission through its Director, Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.

                             Appellant/Opposite Party No.3

Versus

 

1.      Samundar Singh s/o Sh. Jaggan Singh, Resident of Village Chhara, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Haryana.

Respondent/Complainant

2.      The Jhajjar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Jhajjar, through its Branch Manager.

3.      District Khadi and Village Industries Officer, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

4.      Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board through its Managing Director Base 63-66, Sector-2, Panchkula-134112.

 

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

Present:               Shri N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate for appellant.   

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Khadi & Village Industries Commission-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated March 27^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.258 of 2013.

2.      Samunder Singh-Complainant (respondent No.1 herein) had taken loan of Rs.20.00 lacs from the Opposite Parties under a scheme known as “Rural Employment Generation Programme (REGP)” in 2007 and installed a Floor Mill under the name and style “M/s Kishan Floor Mill Chhara”. Under the said Scheme, the borrower was entitled to subsidy. The relevant extract of the Scheme is reproduced as under:-

                   “(B) The Scheme:

                   The scheme envisages it at:-

25% of the project cost for the project upto Rs.10.00 Lakhs will be provided as “Margin Money”.

For projects above Rs.10.00 lakhs and upto Rs.25.00 lakhs, rate of Margin Money will be 25% of Rs10.00 lakhs plus 10% of the remaining cost of the project (Project cost beyond Rs.25.00 lakhs not eligible for financing under the Scheme).

Xxxx

(K) Modalities of the operation of the Scheme.

xxx

(vii) Since 'Margin Money' is to be provided in the form of back-ended Subsidy (Grant), it will be credited to the borrower's loan account after 2 years from the date of first disbursement to the borrower/institution.”

3.      The complainant continued to work under the above programme and during 2010, production unit of the complainant was inspected by the opposite parties for good records. The case of the complainant was sanctioned for the benefits of Margin Money under the REGP. The total amount in the form of margin money was 25% of the total cost of the project. However, benefit of the scheme not being given, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

4.      The Opposite Parties contested complaint. Opposite Party No.1/The Jhajjar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, in its reply admitted that loan of Rs.20.00 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the complainant, out of which a sum of Rs.12.50 lacs was term loan and Rs.7.50 lacs was as working capital loan, exclusive of margin money.

5.      Opposite Parties No.2 and 4, in their joint reply stated that the margin money claim could be adjusted up to May 31^st, 2008 whereas the margin money claim of the complainant was submitted by the opposite party No.1 on 17.06.2008 i.e. after expiry of cut out date. The opposite party No.3/appellant never refused to make payment of margin money and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.      The appellant/opposite party No.3 in its reply stated that REGP for generation of employment was launched by the opposite party No.3/appellant and it was to be implemented by the opposite parties No.2 & 4. Thus, the appellant/opposite party No.3 had no concern with the complainant. It was further pleaded that the complainant had not availed the facility of margin money from the opposite parties No.2 and 4 timely, therefore, the appellant/opposite party No.3 did not release margin money to the complainant which resulted into lapsed margin money. Besides, the complainant did not return the loan amount to the opposite parties No.2 and 4. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint issuing directions as under:-

“……we direct the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to make the payment of remaining margin money amount to the complainant with a lump sum compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental agony, harassment etc along with a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.”

8.      There is delay of 369 days in filing of the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the appellant by filing an application.

9.      The ground taken for condonation of delay given in the application is as under:-

“7.     That the delay of 372 days has occurred due to the fact that earlier the appellant department has decided not to file appeal and even disbursed Rs.3 lakhs to the respondent and now when it has been made to pay more than the amount to which the complainant is legally entitled under REGP scheme. Then the need arose to file appeal because the complainant has filed execution which is fixed on 11/5/2016 before District Forum Jhajjar. The complainant cannot draw illegal benefits under the pressure of execution as he is legally entitled for a lesser amount.” 

10.    Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay.”

11.    In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SC 448, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“…The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.

12.    In this case, the appellant has taken casual approach and have not proved to be a prudent litigant. The plea taken by the appellant is not believable. A valuable right has accrued to the other party/respondent/complainant. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for condonation of delay of 369 days in filing of the appeal is made out.  Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

13.    Even on merits, there is no force in this appeal. undisputedly, the complainant had obtained loan of Rs.20.00 lacs and subsidy of Rs.3.70 lacs was to be given plus 10% of his own contribution i.e. Rs.2.00 lacs. The total cost of the project was Rs.22.00 lacs.  

14.    In paragraphs No.9 and 10 of the reply, the appellant/opposite party No.3 has stated as under:-

“9.     …………It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant did not avail the facility of margin money from the respondents No.2 & 4 timely and due to that reason the answering respondent did not release margin money to the complainant which resulted into lapsed margin money.

10.    .........It is wrongly alleged that the answering respondent refused to make payment of margin money on 10.05.2013. The story concocted by the complainant is false baseless and illegal. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.”

15.    It is clear from the pleadings of the appellant/opposite party No.3 that contradictory stand has been taken in the reply. In paragraph No.9 it has been stated that the margin money was not released to the complainant, as the complainant did not claim timely. However, in paragraph No.10 appellant/opposite party stated that it never refused to make payment of margin money. It is well settled principle of law that a party who does not come to court with clean hands, is not entitled for any relief.

16.    The opposite party/appellant does not deny that subsidy was available to the complainant. Thus, from the evidence produced on the record, it is established that the complainant was not given the benefit of subsidy to which he was entitled. Hence, no ground to interfere in the impugned order is made out. 

17.    In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on both the grounds, that is, being barred by limitation as well as on merits.

18.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 08.06.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL