Date of Judgment:Wednesday, the 26th Day of August, 2015
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal u/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is at the instance of the Opposite Party to impeach Judgment dated 06.05.2013. passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bankura (In short, DCDRF) in complaint case No.03/2012.
The Respondent herein being Complainant initiated the complaint u/s. 12 of the Act stating that being unemployed person he filed an application for availing loan and subsidy under Bangla Swanirbhar Karmasansthan Prakalpa (BSKP) (Atamamaryada). On 15.02.2010 Opposite Party made inspection about the proposed project of the Complainant and on 25.02.2010 the Opposite Party sanctioned loan in favour of the Complainant and directed the Opposite Party to make payment of margin money to the tune of Rs.41,346/- to his Savings Account on 13.01.2011. But in spite of depositing the margin money the Opposite Party remained sitting tight over the matter and did not disburse the sanctioned loan till 25.06.2011. For aforesaid delay, the price of Ambassador Project has been enhanced to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and the Complainant could not obtain All India Permit as the Government has withdrawn All India Permit in the intermittent period. Hence, the instant consumer complaint with the prayer for following reliefs, viz. a) for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.30,000/- due to delay in disbursement of loan; b) a direction upon the Opposite Party to waive the proportionate subsidy of Rs.30,000/- ; c) to make payment of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of compensation; d) to make payment of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain and harassment; e) litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.
The Opposite Party by filing the Written Version has disputed the claim contending inter-alia that the Complainant actually deposited Rs.41,346 only in different phases and did not submit the required quotation immediately after loan was sanctioned on 25.02.2010. Therefore, they could not calculate the actual margin money and on the date of submission of quotation only on 24.06.2011 the amount of loan was disbursed. According to the Opposite Party, the Complainant himself was negligent in performing his part and unnecessary implicated the Opposite Party in this dispute with some ulterior motive.
Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the respective Parties and on going through the materials on record the Ld. DCDRF allowed the consumer complaint on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- with an observation that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.30,000/- as enhanced price of the project , a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for his physical and mental harm which prompted the Opposite Party to prefer this appeal.
The point arises for consideration in this appeal as to whether or not the Ld. DCDRF was justified in passing the order impugned.
Upon the hearing Ld. Advocate for the respective Parties and on going through the materials on record it emerges that the Complainant had applied for a loan to combat his unemployment by purchase of a Diesel Ambassador Car through BSKP. According to the scheme, the value of the car was projected at Rs.4,13,459/-. According to the scheme 70% of total project cost i.e. Rs.2,89,421/- will be borne by the Opposite Party and out of remaining 30%, 20% amount i.e. Rs.82,692/- would be Government Subsidy and the balance amount of own contribution of the Petitioner to the tune of 10% would be Rs.41,346/-. It also comes to surface on 15.02.2010 the Opposite Party has inspected the project and recommend for sanctioning of Rs.2,89,421/- as bank loan to the Complainant. On 25.02.2010 the Opposite Party issued the sanction letter in favour of the Complainant with regard to his loan application dated 11.02.2010 and according to clause 6 of the loan sanction letter the repayment of loan would be made in 60 equal monthly instalments (E.M.I.) at Rs.6,330/- per month i.e. after three months from the date of disbursement. It also comes to surface on 22.06.2010 the District Self-help Group and Self-employment Officer, Bankura sent a Bank Draft to the Opposite Party amounting R.3,63,542/- including the Subsidy amount to the Complainant amount to Rs.82,692/-. All these are admitted facts.
Now, with regard to delayed payment in respect of margin money of Rs.41,346/- it reveals that on 13.01.2011 the Complainant deposited the said amount. From the evidence on record that the Government released the subsidy of BSKP scheme to the tune of Rs.82,692/- on following day of sanction of loan i.e. 26.02.2010. The factum of payment of such subsidy was not disclosed by the Opposite Party to the Complainant and had it been disclosed the Complainant would have been more active in depositing the margin money being the amount of Rs.41,346/- much earlier. However, the Opposite Party totally suppressed this fact. Meanwhile, the rate of the Diesel Ambassador vehicle has been enhanced to Rs.4,19,499/-.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant has submitted that on 28.06.2011 the Complainant gave an undertaking to the Opposite Party that the enhanced price will be borne by him. It is clearly understood that in order to obtain the amount of sanctioned loan the Petitioner gave such undertaking at the request of Bank Official but it is quite apparent that the Opposite Party did not disclose the fact of payment of subsidy by the Government under the scheme and from an information dated 28.10.2011 received from the Opposite Party under Right to Information Act, 2006, the Complainant came to know about such deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party/Bank. The reply given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant in this regard clearly indicates that the officer concerned who sanctioned the loan is either transferred or retired but it is quite clear in the month of January, 2011 the margin money was deposited by the Complainant. At least immediately after receiving of that amount the Opposite Party could show their bonafide by informing the Complainant as to their readiness and willingness to pay the amount of loan which they have sanctioned on 25.02.2010.
In this regard, it would be pertinent to record that the Bank Official had no authority to keep the subsidy amount in their custody without informing the Complainant. For such intentional latches on the part of the Opposite Party the Complainant has suffered much as the rate of vehicle has been enhanced.
Therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in disbursing the loan in time in favour of the Complainant resulting to financial loss as well as mental sufferings of the Petitioner who deprived from availing All India Permit for plying such Ambassador Car on hire.
Considering all the aspects of the matter we do not find any merit in the appeal. The Ld. DCDRF was quite justified in awarding compensation as indicated above.
For the reason aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed on contest. There will be, however, no order as to costs in this appeal.
The Judgment dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bankura in consumer complaint No.03/2012 is hereby affirmed.
The Appellant is directed to make payment of the amount awarded by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bankura within one month from the date of this order failing which the Respondent being Complainant of the case shall have the liberty to execute order in accordance with law.
The interim order, as passed hereinbefore, stands vacated.
