D.O.F:17/09/2018
D.O.O:28/10/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.153/2018
Dated this, the 28th day of October 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
K.P Harinadh (66y)
S/o. M.K Parameshwaran Nair)
Kunhippara, P.O Kodakkad : Complainant
(Adv: V.V. Raveendran)
And
1. Secretary
Thimiri Service C-operative Bank,
Nanamkai, P.O Thimiri
(Adv:M.V.Amaresan)
: Opposite Parties
2. Secretary
District Co-operative Bank
Kasaragod.
(Adv: Chandrashekaran Nair & Vijayan Kodoth)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The complaint is filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act.
The case of the complainant is that he availed a loan of Rs. 90,000/- from Opposite party No: 1 bank for cattle farming. From which Rs. 25,000/- is covered by NABARD subsidy and remaining Rs. 65,000/- is repayable within three years in instalments Opposite party No: 1, assured him that he need only to repay amount other than this subsidy amount. But surprisingly subsidy amount is not credited to his loan account. The complainant enquired with Opposite party No:2 District Co-operative Bank. Then filed complaint before joint Registrar on 01/07/2017, received a reply dated 27/07/2017, the Opposite parties repudiated claim for subsidy. The complainant alleges negligence and deficiency of service in not adjusting subsidy amount with its interest thus claims compensation and cost of litigation also.
The Opposite party No: 1 filed its version. Contention is that loan amount is Rs. 90,000/- includes subsidy of Rs. 25,000/-. The Opposite party No: 1 took all necessary steps with Opposite party No: 2 for getting subsidy but not credited the same. There is no deficiency in service by Opposite party No: 1 and prayed for dismiss the complaint.
The Opposite party No: 2 also filed written version stating that subsidy is eligible for the loan. Subsidy claim submitted by Opposite party No: 1 was forwarded to State Co-operative bank for release of subsidy by Opposite party No: 2. In the particular case subsidy was not released due to paucity of funds earmarked by NABARD for the Scheme. No deficiency in service by Opposite party No:2 filed additional statement that loan amount is Rs. 90,000/-. Further stated that subsidy application is forwarded and pending with NABARD.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1 by Opposite party No:1 and Opposite party No:2, Ext A1 to A6 documents marked from their side. Ext A1 is loan pass book, Ext A2 loan register, Ext A3 reply from joint registrar, notice for payment of loan amount is Ext A4, Ext A5 reply letter under RTI Act and Ext A6 annexure. The Opposite party No:1 filed chief affidavit and was cross examined by complainant and Opposite party No:2 no cross examination. The Opposite party No:1 filed documents and Ext B1 to B16 marked, Ext B1loan application Ext B2 loan deed, Ext B3 loan register, Ext B4 subsidy claim , Ext B5 letter to Opposite party No: 2 claiming subsidy, Ext B6 claim form for subsidy , Ext B7 letter to NABARD claiming subsidy, Ext B11 letter to Opposite party No: 1 to explain for non-payment of subsidy , Ext B 12 letter by complainant to joint registrar and NABARD, Ext B13 reply by Opposite party No: 1 to Assistant Registrar, Ext B14 proceedings of joint registrar fixing responsibility to Opposite party No: 2 in not reporting non release of subsidy to State Co-operative bank, Ext B15 loan register and Ext B16 NABARD circular.
From the pleadings and evidence following point arise for consideration in this case.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of any of the Opposite parties?
- Whether complainant is entitled to subsidy and compensation and if so for what reliefs?
From the complaint, evidence given, documents submitted it is very clear that complainant availed a loan of Rs. 90,000/- which is eligible for subsidy of Rs. 25,000/- by NABARD.It is also evident that Opposite party No:1 has duly forwarded the claim form for subsidy with Opposite party No: 2 bank in time, followed up with reminder.From the proceedings of joint registrar it is shown that there is total failure and negligence from Opposite party No:2 in not forwarding the claim to State Co-operative bank though Opposite party No:2 claimed that it forwarded the claim to State co-operative bank, it was found to be a false statement vide proceeding of Joint registrar.No document is produced by Opposite party No: 2 to show that claim received from Opposite party No: 1 is duly forwarded to appropriate authority namely State co-operative bank or NABARD.The Opposite party No: 2 did not adduce any oral evidence.Despite the claim of Opposite party No: 1 that there is negligence from Opposite party No:2, Opposite party No:2 did not cross examination or denied the same.
Further Ext A16 shows that claim form was not received to NABARD for proceedings.
So from the documents and evidence on record finds that complainant availed loan, eligible for subsidy, that subsidy was claimed as per requirements, Opposite party No:1proceeded it in time, send it to Opposite party No: 2 for onward forwarding it to state Co-operative bank thereby to NABARD, that Opposite party No:2 failed in their duty to process the same, that Opposite party No:1 has performed everything possible within their control, therefore Opposite party No: 2 alone is negligent in its services thereby complainant did not get subsidy benefits, and the Opposite party No: 2 is liable for the reliefs claimed by complainant.The Opposite party No: 1 is exonerated from the claims for reasons stated above.
The complainant has no claim that subsidy amount is also paid by him to Opposite party No: 1.Therefore Opposite party No:2 has to reimburse the subsidy by paying Rs. 25,000/- towards the loan account of complainant in the case.The complainant is also entitled to as compensation for mental agony and hardships due to negligence and deficiency in service of Opposite party No:2 also cost of the litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part.Opposite party No:2 is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards subsidy amount payable by complainant to the loan amount with Opposite party No:1 bank with 8% interest from date of complaint till realization, and also pay Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and hardships due to deficiency in service and cost of litigation Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) within 30days to the receipt of the order.
Sd/-Sd/-Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBERPRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Pass book
A2- Ledger
A3- Reply from Joint registrar
A4- Notice for payment of loan amount
A5- Reply letter under RTI Act
A6- Annexure
B1- Loan Application
B2- Loan deed
B3- Loan Register
B4-Subsidy claim
B5- Letter to OP No:2 claiming subsidy
B6- Claim form for subsidy
B7- Letter to NABARD Claiming subsidy
B8- Claim application
B9- A letter Dt: 5/10/2015
B10- Letter Dt: 24/11/2015
B11-Letter to OP No:1 to explain for non-payment subsidy
B12- Letter by complainant to joint registrar and NABARD
B13- Reply by OP No:1 to Assistant Registrar
B14- Letter Dt: 23/11/2017
B15- Copy of loan ledger
B16- NABARD Circular
Witness Examined
Pw1- K.P. Harinath
Dw1- Suresh Kumar.K.V
Sd/-Sd/-Sd/-
MEMBERMEMBERPRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
