Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/275/2014

Parveen Kumar S/o Raghu Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Mir Chand

16 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                     Complaint No.275 of 2014.

                                                     Date of institution: 23.06.2014.

                                                     Date of decision: 16.10.2017.

Parveen Kumar, aged 32 years, S/o Sh. Raghu Nath, R/o Village-Guglon, PO-Bhamboi, Tehsil-Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                      

                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. State Bank of Patiala, Northern Railway Workshop, Main Gate, Jagadhri Workshop-135002, Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. State Bank of Patiala, Regional Office-1 (HRY), SCO No.70, Sector-5, Panchkula through its General Manager.

 

     ….Respondents.

BEFORE  SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. M.C.Saini, Advocate, for complainant.   

                Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the OPs.

               

                ORDER

         

(SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

1.             The complainant-Parveen Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.             Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that as per self employment scheme of the Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development Scheme, he had applied for a dairy loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the concerned Department who sanctioned the said loan.  It is alleged that there was a scheme of subsidy to be given by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) to the tune of Rs.37,500/- or 25% of the disbursed amount and the subsidy amount was to be collected by the Op No.1 from National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) through Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development Department.  It is further alleged that on 12.03.2011, a loan amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was disbursed in two instalments (Instead of sanctioned amount of Rs.1,50,000) by the Op No.1 in the bank account No.65111778028.  Thereafter, the complainant had purchased three cows and payment receipts were submitted to Op No.1 and requested Op No.1 to collect subsidy amount from National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) through Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development Department but in vain for which the Ops are fully responsible.  It is further alleged that the complainant made several requests to the Ops to pay subsidy amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant but they did not do so.  It is further alleged that the complainant came to know through R.T.I. correspondence that the subsidy amount was detained by the Op No.2 from 03.08.2012 to 07.03.2014 and the said amount was released in the bank account on 07.03.2014.  The complainant requested the Ops to pay interest for the above-said period but they refused to do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay interest on the amount of subsidy for the period 03.08.2012 to 07.03.2014 and to pay Rs.80,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony or any other relief which this Forum deems fit and proper.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that initially the complainant applied for a loan of Rs.1,50,000/-, however, he had purchased three cows worth Rs.1,20,000/- and as such, the third party payment has been made by the bank through cheque in the name of seller; that as per the guidelines of NABARD, there was a lock in the period of 3 years intact with the subsidy in question, meaning thereby it was condition precedent that the complainant would continue the said loan at least for three years and only then he was entitled for subsidy.  It is further alleged that the loan agreement was executed by the complainant on 27.05.2011 and he had got adjusted/repaid his loan account on 24.12.2012 and did not continue the same for 3 years.  Therefore, the complainant was not entitled for any subsidy.  Moreover, for the sake of goodwill of the bank, the subsidy of Rs.30,000/- was released to the complainant on 07.03.2014, though he was not entitled for the same.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure-CW/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C12 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R6 and closed evidence on behalf of Ops.    

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.             After hearing the ld. Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of record available on the file, the foremost question which arises before us for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the interest on the subsidy amount which remained lying with the Op bank w.e.f. 03.08.2012 to 07.03.2014 as alleged by the complainant?

                The version of complainant is that as per self employment scheme of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development, the complainant obtained a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from the Ops bank and as per scheme of NABARD, a subsidy of 25% of the loan amount was to be paid to the complainant by the bank but the Ops bank despite repeated requests did not pay the subsidy to the complainant, whereas the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development paid the subsidy amount of Rs.30,000/- to the Op bank on 03.08.2012.  The Op bank illegally detained the aforesaid amount of subsidy from 03.08.2012 to 07.03.2014 and paid the same to the complainant on 07.03.2014 and the bank is liable to pay the interest on subsidy amount of Rs.30,000/- from 03.08.2012 to 07.03.2014. 

                On the other hand, the version of the Ops is that as per the guidelines of NABARD, there was a lock in the period of 3 years intact with the subsidy in question, meaning thereby it was condition precedent that the complainant would continue the said loan at least for three years and only then he was entitled for subsidy, whereas the complainant has repaid his loan on 24.12.2012 and did not continue the same for 3 years.  Therefore, the complainant was not entitled for any subsidy but for the sake of goodwill of the bank, the subsidy of Rs.30,000/- was released to the complainant on 07.03.2014.  The complainant has executed an agreement during the taking of loan and as per terms and conditions of the loan, the complainant is not entitled for any interest on the subsidy for the period the said amount remained lying with the bank for 3 years.  Besides this, the complainant has also executed an affidavit dt. 03.11.2010 duly attested by Notary Public to the effect that he will  abide by all the guidelines of NABARD and as per their instructions, no interest can be imposed on subsidy.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any interest.

                It is not disputed that the complainant had obtained loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from the Op bank under self employment scheme of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development for the purpose of dairy development.  It is also not disputed that the complainant is/was entitled to refund/subsidy of 25% of the loan amount in case loanee had continued to repayment of loan upto the period of 3 years.  It is also not disputed that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid by the Op bank to the complainant on 03.08.2012.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has taken the loan on 12.03.2011 and repaid the loan amount on 03.08.2012, meaning thereby after a period of 1 year and 4 months and before the expiry of period of 3 years.      

                 We have perused the document Annexure-R2 which is terms and conditions, the clause of Adjustment of Subsidy, which is reproduced as under:-

                “The capital subsidy will be back ended with minimum lock-in period of 3 years.

                The capital subsidy should be refunded one year after the account becoming NPA and remaining NPA as on date.

                The capital subsidy admissible under the scheme will be kept in the “Subsidy Reserve Fund Account (Borrower-wise) in the booking of the financing bank.  No interest will be paid on this amount by the bank.  In view of this, for the purposes of charging interest on the loan component, the subsidy amount should be excluded.  The balance lying to the credit of the “Subsidy Reserve Fund Account” will not form part of Demand and Time Liabilities for calculation of CRR and SLR.”

                From the perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the Capital Subsidy will be back ended with minimum lock-in period of 3 years and no interest will be paid on this amount by the bank.  In the present case, the complainant had repaid the loan amount in about 1 year and 4 months after taking the loan and as such, the complainant is not entitled for the subsidy but the bank for his goodwill paid the amount of subsidy to the complainant.  As per this condition, the complainant is also not entitled for any interest.  Besides this, during the submission of application for taking loan, the complainant has also executed an affidavit (Annexure-R3) wherein the complainant had undertaken that he will abide by the terms and conditions of Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India/National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) and also undertaken that he will not claim any subsidy from the Animal Husbandry & Dairy Department, Haryana with regard to this loan.  Apart from above facts, the complainant had also submitted a letter/application dt. 07.03.2014 (Annexure-R4) to the bank stating that he had received the subsidy amount for his dairy loan from the bank and he was fully satisfied with the action of bank.  Thus, the complainant had expressed his complete satisfaction with the action of the bank.  As such, the complainant is not entitled for claim of any interest upon the subsidy amount of Rs.30,000/-.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.            

Announced in open court:

Dated: 16.10.2017.

                                                         (SATPAL)

                                                         PRESIDENT.

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                           MEMBER