KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal preferred under section 15 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, against the judgement passed in CC/128/2019, by the Ld. CDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur on 30/08/2022.

Brief facts of the appellant case are that, the respondent/ complainant had obtained a loan from the appellant bank for the purpose of cattle feeding scheme (Chhagal Palan), under the Goatery Development Capital Subsidy Scheme of NABARD, for a total project cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh) only, out of which bank loan amount had been fixed at Rs. 56,667/- (Fifty-six thousand six hundred sixty-seven) only and own contribution of the respondent/complainant had been fixed at Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) only and subsidy amount had been fixed at Rs. 33,333/- (Thirty-three thousand three hundred three) only. On completion of the formalities by the respondent/complainant the said loan had been sanctioned and disbursed to the respondent/complainant, in the bank loan account no. 5044300002837, with an assurance from NABARD to release the subsidy amount. The respondent/complainant deposited the monthly EMI of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) only totaling sixty installments, along with other charges. The respondent/complainant on 02/03/2017, found from his loan account, that there was due of Rs. 32,673/- (Thirty-two thousand six hundred seventy-three) only and the subsidy amount of Rs. 33,333/- (Thirty-three thousand three hundred three) only was also due on 02/03/2017. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant prayed to the appellant bank for adjustment of the loan amount of Rs. 32,673/- (Thirty-two thousand six hundred seventy-three) only from the subsidy amount of Rs. 33,333/- (Thirty-three thousand three hundred three) only, which was yet to be received by the appellant bank from NABARD. As such the appellant bank instructed the respondent/complainant to re-pay the amount due, so that the respondent/complainant’s loan account do not turn into an NPA. The appellant bank also informed, that after full re-payment of loan, the appellant bank would issue a “No Due Certificate” in favour of the respondent/complainant and only then the respondent/complainant, would be entitled to get the subsidy amount of Rs. 33,333/- (Thirty-three thousand three hundred three) only. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant deposited the entire due amount in his loan account by depositing Rs. 33,007/- (Thirty-three thousand seven) only, on 04/09/2017.  The respondent/complainant then started intimating the appellant bank for the subsidy amount, but the appellant bank informed, that they had not received the subsidy amount from NABARD. The appellant bank also tried its best to get the subsidy amount released from NABARD, by corresponding vide letters dated 07/06/2017, 05/02/2018, but to no avail. The respondent/complainant, thereafter, filed the case before the Ld. Forum below. Inspite of the filing of the case the respondent/complainant filed several RTI dated 18/04/2022, 07/05/2022 and 18/06/2022 to NABARD seeking information regarding the subsidy to which NABARD duly reply on 24/05/2022 and 13/07/2022 and the appellant bank had replied on 13/05/2022. Hence this case.

The appellant bank appeared to contest the claim by filing written version wherein, it admitted the factual aspect of the disbursement of loan and laid the blame for non-disbursement of the subsidy, on the failure of non-disbursement of subsidy amount by NABARD.

The respondent/complainant had examined himself on oath and furnished certain documents and the appellant bank was also examined and filed certain documents.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur, passed the impugned order directing the appellant bank to pay Rs. 33,333/- (Thirty-three thousand three hundred three) only along with interest @8% from 04/09/2017 along with Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only as compensation and Rs. 5,000/-(Five thousand) only towards litigation charged within 45 days from the date of passing of the order.

Being aggrieved by the above order, the appellant preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the Ld. Forum below, had erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order, on the ground that the subsidy amount could not be disbursed, as the same had not been transferred by NABARD.

Decision with reasons

Ld. advocate for the appellant, at the time of hearing had submitted, that the appellant bank should not be faulted for the non-disbursement of the subsidy amount, as the same was a liability of NABARD and the appellant bank had nothing to do with it. For this reason, he had argued, that NABARD was a necessary party and therefore, the appeal should be allowed.

Ld. advocate for the respondent/complainant on the other hand had pointed to the existence of RTI replies wherein, the appellant bank was found to be wanting for which reason, the subsidy amount could not be disbursed from the end of NABARD. This negligence on the part of the appellant bank resulted in deficiency of service and therefore, the order passed by the Ld. Forum below should be upheld.

As far as the factual aspect of the case is concerned, nothing is disputed, in fact, even the RTI replies dated 24/05/2022 and 13/07/2022 had been made annexures A-8 and A-10 in the memo of appeal. The above annexures clearly show, the appellant bank in poor light, as even after the filing of the case before the Ld. Forum below, the appellant bank had been unable to process the application for subsidy, indicating the quantum of negligence prevailing in the appellant bank. Therefore, the Ld. Forum below rightly punished the appellant bank’s negligence by passing the impugned order and there is no reason shown by the appellant bank to cause interference in the impugned order from this end. Under the circumstance the instant appeal fails.

It is therefore

Ordered

That the instant appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest with costs.

The impugned order is upheld and the appellant bank is directed to comply with the directions within 45(Forty-five) days from the date of receipt of this order. 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs.

Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur.