Complaint No: 350 of 2019.
Date of Institution: 05.12.2019.
Date of order: 19.03.2024.
Pardeep Kaur D/o Bhagwant Singh, resident of Village Ghuman Kalan Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
…......Complainant.
VERSUS
1. State Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh – 160017, through its General Manager (NW – 1).
2. State Bank of India, Branch Dhariwal District Gurdaspur, through its Branch Manager. Pin Code – 143519.
.....Opposite Parties
3. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Regional Office, Plot No. 3, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Regional Manager.
.....Performa opposite party.
Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.B.S. Thakur, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2: Sh.H.S. Kahnuwania, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.3: Sh.Vishnu Sharma, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Pardeep Kaur, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against State Bank of India Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a Certificate Holder of Poultry Farm Course issued by the Animal Husbandry, Punjab. The complainant started the business of Poultry Farm in his village Ghuman Kalan District Gurdaspur alongwith his father Sh. Bhagwant Singh. It is pleaded that for the above said purpose, the complainant took a loan of Rs.16,00,000/- from the opposite party No. 2 vide Loan A/c No. 33609063319 for the purpose of Poultry Farm as the Poultry Farm business falls under the Small Scale Industry and as per the Government Guidelines, the loanee was compensated by giving the subsidy on the loan amount. The Subsidy was to be given to the loanee by Khadi and Village Industries Commission / Board / DIC through the opposite party No. 3. It is further pleaded that after availing the above said loan from the opposite party No. 2 under the supervision of the opposite party No. 1, the complainant complied with for all the formalities with regard to loan and for getting the subsidy on the loan amount. The complainant was entitled to get subsidy amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- for the above said loan. The installments of the above said loan amount were given to the opposite party No. 2 regularly by the complainant and the complainant every time requested the opposite party No. 2 for adjustment of their amount of subsidy in the loan account, but every time the opposite party No. 2 put the matter off on one pretext or the other. It is further pleaded that even when the opposite party No. 2 did not exceed the request of the complainant, the complainant filed application under Right to Information Act to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 for taking information regarding to the amount of subsidy of the complainant, which was replied by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 that "Nil Subsidy has been received in the A/c No. 33609063319 from Khadi and Village Industry Commission / Board. It is further pleaded that after getting the above said reply from the opposite parties, the complainant moved an application under RTI Act to the opposite party No. 3 for taking information regarding the amount of subsidy of the complainant and the opposite party No. 3 wrote a letter dated 07.08.2019 in reply to the application of the complainant informing her that the amount of subsidy of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of the complainant has already been released by them and transferred to the Bank vide UTR No. UTIBH1528804228 dated 15.10.2015 and the same was dully communicated to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 vide Letter No. NB (Chg) ICD/4047/PVCF/2015-2016 dated 23.10.2015. It is further pleaded that even after getting the above said reply / information from the opposite party No. 3, the complainant approached the office of the opposite party No. 2 and requested them to adjust the amount of subsidy in their loan account and also showed them the above referred letter received by NABARD, but they are refusing to exceed the same on the pretext that they had not received any such amount of subsidy, rather the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 put pressure upon the complainant to deposit the amount of loan and to clear the loan account, otherwise exorbitant rate of interest in the shape of penal interest will be charged or the pledged property of the complainant or its sureties will be put to auction and the complainant in order to save herself from the penal interest and under the pressure and threats of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 cleared the loan account by facing very financial hardship and by borrowing the amount from her near and dears. It is further pleaded that the complainant approached the officials of the opposite parties again and again with folded hands and requested them to release the amount of subsidy to the complainant, but the officials of the opposite parties showed reluctance / high headedness attitude and they kept the matter lingering on one pretext or the other and now finally refused to admit the genuine claim of the complainant and they did not give any heed towards the genuine request of the complainant. It is further pleaded that there is clear cut deficiency in service and high headedness attitude on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. As the complainant is not claiming any relief against the opposite party No. 3 and the opposite party No. 3 has been made as Performa Party. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to release the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. Subsidy amount in favour of the complainant alongwith 18% interest from 15.10. 2015 i.e. the date on which the amount was credited in the Bank Account and the complainant may be awarded the amount of Rs.20,000/- for the physical harassment and mental agony at the hands of the opposite parties and Rs.20,000/- as a cost of litigation to the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant against the answering opposite parties No. 1 and 2 is not maintainable as such the same is false, wrong and incorrect. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded that this Ld. Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint as the complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer as she has been running her poultry business on huge large scale for earning profits and not for earning her livelihood. Thus, the complainant does not falls within the ambit of consumer. So, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed and the complainant has not approached this Ld. Commission with clean hands and has also misleading to this Ld. Commission by concealing the true facts. It is further pleaded that the matter of the fact is that the complainant has been running the business of Poultry Farm alongwith her father on huge large scale for earning profits and not exclusively for earning his livelihood. The turnover from the business of the complainant is in Lacs. Thus, the complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the complainant alongwith her father has availed the loan facility of Rs.16,00,000/- under Poultry Venture Capital Fund (Subsidy) Scheme from the answering opposite party No. 2 on 11.01.2014. The answering opposite parties has sanctioned and disbursed the said loan to the complainant i.e. A/c No. 33609063319 Term Loan of Rs.8,00,000/- and 33580394724 Limit of Rs.8,00,000/-. For the security of loan, the father of the complainant i.e. Bhagwant Singh (Joint borrower) has mortgaged the agricultural land measuring 11 Kanals 11 Marlas by way of Registered Mortgage vide dated 28.11.2013. It is pertinent to mentioned here that the subsidy amount was to be provided to the complainant by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Board (NABARD) and not by the answering opposite parties. It is further pleaded that no subsidy amount has been released and credited in the loan A/c No. 33609063319 of the complainant by Khadi and Village Industries Commission Board (NABARD) till date. It is further pleaded that the complainant was willful defaulter and has not paid her loan installments regularly as agreed by her and finally the answering opposite parties have settled her loan in Scheme for One Time Settlement of NPA & AUCA 2018-2019 (RINN SAMADHAN). In the said settlement scheme, the answering opposite parties have received amount of Rs.3,67,090/- out total outstanding amount of Rs.8,06,359/- from the complainant and has sacrificed the amount of Rs.4,39,269/- in loan A/c No. 33580394724 of the complainant and similarly the answering opposite parties have received amount of Rs.1,98,589/- out total outstanding amount of Rs.5,10,741/- from the complainant and have sacrificed the amount of Rs.2,12,151/- in loan A/c No. 33609063319 of the complainant. Thus, the answering opposite parties have to bear huge loss of money and has extended benefits of more than Rs.6,51,420/- to the complainant in her loan account and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties.
On merits, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Upon notice, the opposite party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply, stating therein that the complainant has moved an application under R.T.I. Act, 2005 for getting the information regarding the amount of subsidy. It is pleaded that the answering opposite party No. 3 has released the subsidy amounting of Rs.2,00,000/- and same has been transferred in the loan account of the complainant. Since, the answering opposite party No. 3 has released the amount of subsidy of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant in his loan account therefore the answering opposite party No.3 has no any liability qua the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not claimed any relief against the answering opposite party No.3 and she is also not consumer of the answering opposite party No.3 therefore, the complaint against the answering opposite party No.3 is liable to be dismissed.
On merits, the opposite party No.3 denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Pardeep Kaur, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Param Jit, (Chief Manager, SBI, Branch Dhariwal, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1,2/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1,2/1 to Ex.OP-1,2/6 alongwith reply.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has filed reply.
8. Rejoinder filed by the complainant.
9. Written arguments filed by the complainant and also filed by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 but not filed by the opposite party No.3.
10. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is Certificate Holder of Poultry Farm Course, copy of which is Ex.C2 and to start business of poultry farm. Complainant has availed loan facility of Rs.16,00,000/- from opposite party No.2 and since the poultry farm falls within the definition of small scale industry as such as per Govt. guidelines the loanee was entitled to subsidy on the loan amount by Khadi and Village Industries Commission / Board / DIC. It is further argued that complainant has already paid the loan amount but the subsidy amount was not adjusted in the account of the complainant on account of which complainant had to borrow amount to repay the loan to opposite party No.2. It is further argued that complainant had moved application under RTI which was replied by opposite parties No.1 and 2 and it was disclosed that nil subsidy has been received from Khadi and Village Industries Commission. It is further argued that complainant had obtained RTI information from opposite party No.3 vide Ex.C5 as per which the detail of the subsidy released is duly mentioned. It is further argued that opposite party No.2 has failed to adjust the subsidy amount received from opposite party No.3 in the loan account of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.
11. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has argued that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and complainant is running business and does not fall in the definition of consumer. It is further argued that complainant was willful defaulter to pay the loan installments regularly and the loan was settled under OTS Scheme by extending benefit of Rs.6,51,420/- to the complainant. It is further argued that no amount was ever received by opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.3 and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. Counsel for the opposite party No.3 has argued that opposite party No.3 has already released the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the account of the opposite party No.2 and as such complaint against opposite party No.3 is not maintainable.
13. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
14. To prove her case complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex.C1, copy of certificate issued by Animal Husbandry department Ex.C2, copy of information provided by opposite parties No.1 and 2 Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, copy of RTI information by opposite party No.3 Ex.C5 whereas opposite parties No.1 and 2 have placed on record affidavit of Param Jit Chief Manager Ex.OP-1,2/A, copies of statement of accounts Ex.OP-1,2/1 and Ex.OP-1.2/2, copies of scheme for one time settlement Ex.OP-1,2/3 and Ex.OP-1,2/4, copies of control returns on OTS Ex.OP-1,2/5 and Ex.OP-1,2/6. Opposite party No.3 has placed on record copy of statement of account.
15. It is admitted fact that complainant is Certificate Holder of Poultry Farm Course issued by Animal Husbandry department, Punjab. It is further admitted fact that complainant had availed loan facility of Rs.16,00,000/- from opposite party No.2 for poultry farm business. It is further admitted fact that poultry farm business falls under small scale industry as per Govt. guidelines. It is further admitted fact that loanee was entitled to subsidy amount to be released by Khadi and Village Industries Commission through National Bank for agriculture and rural development opposite party No.3. The only issue for adjudication before this Commission is whether the opposite party No.3 has transferred the subsidy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the account of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and whether the complainant is entitled to receive the said amount.
16. Perusal of letter dated 11.07.2019 Ex.C3 shows that the reply to the information requested by the complainant has given by opposite party No.1 shows that nil subsidy has been received in the account number 33609063319 from Khadi and Village Industries Commission. However, on the contrary opposite party No.3 has provided information vide letter dated 07.08.2019 Ex.C4 as per which it is mentioned that Nabard had released subsidy of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of Ms.Pardeep Kaur on 15.10.2015 and has also provided list of beneficiaries as Ex.C5, as per which total amount of Rs.7,83,500/- is mentioned to have been paid to opposite party No.1 on account of subsidy and name of complainant is mentioned at serial number 1 in Ex.C5 against column No.5450. The only plea of counsel for the opposite party No.1 and 2 is that they have placed on record copies of statement of accounts Ex.OP-1,2/1 and Ex.OP-1,2/2 which clearly shows that no amount has been transferred in the account of the complainant by opposite party No.3 but during the course of arguments counsel for the opposite party No.3 was directed to place on record copy of statement of account from which the amount was transferred in the account of the complainant, on which counsel for the opposite party No.3 has placed on record copy of statement of account as per which, on 15.10.2015 total amount of Rs.7,83,500/- has been transferred to State Bank India from the account of opposite party No.3 maintained with Axis Bank. The said amount of Rs.7,83,500/- has also reflected in Ex.C5 in which amount of Rs.2,00,000/- subsidy payable to the complainant has also mentioned. As such it is proved on record that total payable subsidy meant for four cases mentioned in Ex.C5 was transferred in the account of opposite party No.1 on 15.10.2015 and necessary information was also sent to opposite party No.1 vide Ex.C5 and it was further duty of opposite party No.1 to transfer the said subsidy to the concerned account/branch for further adjustment but perusal of file and evidence on record shows that opposite party No.1 failed to transfer the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to opposite party No.2 its own branch which resulted in unnecessary harassment to the complainant and the complainant had to undergo hardship to pay loan amount.
17. As far as the plea of counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 that the complainant was willful defaulter and had paid the loan amount under OTS Scheme and opposite party No.3 had extended benefit of huge amount to the complainant but the evidence on record and facts shows that the said factor has no effect on the release of subsidy amount which was already released by Khadi and Village Commission through opposite party No.3 and said amount cannot be withheld by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 without any justified reason. Accordingly, complainant has fully proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 and 2.
18. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant i.e. amount of subsidy received from opposite party No.3 on 15.10.2015. Complainant is held entitled to receive interest on the said amount from opposite parties No.1 and 2 @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 15.10.2015 till realization. Complainant is further held entitled to receive compensation for mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.10,000/- which shall also be paid by opposite parties No.1 and 2. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
19. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
20. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
March 19, 2024 Member.
*YP*
