West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/27/2019

Mr. Partha Nath, S/O- Pranbandhu Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Baul Branch - Opp.Party(s)

31 Dec 2021

ORDER

The fact of the case, in brief, is that the Complainant applied loan for Mobile Retail shop to the B.D.O., Balurghat ( Opposite Party No.2)  under S.V.S.K.P. ( Swami Vivekanand  Swanirbhar  Karmasanstha Prakalpa ) under policy of Govt. of West Bengal. He submitted papers for the same with project cost of Rs.1,50,000/- and the Opposite Party No.2 sent the same to the Opposite Party No.1 on 21.03.2017 for disbursing the same. After receiving the project with connecting papers from the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.1 issued a sanction letter of loan to the Opposite Party No.2 on 28.06.2017. The Opposite Party No.1 also requested on this letter to release the subsidiary amount of Rs.45000/- for the Complainant. On the basis of that letter of O.P. No.1 dt. 28.06.2017, the O.P. No.3 sanctioned the subsidiary amount of Rs. 45,000/- for the complainant and transferred the subsidiary amount of Rs. 45,000/- in the account of O.P. No.1 vide account No. 5070051111111 dt. 23.11.2017. Thereafter, the O.P. No.3 informed the matter of subsidiary of the complainant to the O.P. No.1 on19.12.2017. Thereafter, the complainant several times meet with the O.P. No.1 but the O.P. No.1 did not disburse the loan amount to the complaint  till now and for that reason the complainant cannot start his Mobile Retail shop till now. The complainant filed a complaint to the Assistant Director Consumers Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Dakshin Dinajpur zone, Balurghat on 07.02.2019 for his redress but in vain. Finding no other alternatives the complainant filed the instant case U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Parties claiming amount of Rs. 1,50,000 /- with 9% interest  from 17.03.2017+ Compensation Rs.1,00,000/- Total – Rs. 2,50,000 + interest.  

 

            Notice was duly served upon the opposite Parties and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Parties appeared before this commission and filed their written version.

            By filing written version, the opposite party no.1 denied the material allegation of the complainant. The opposite party No.1 has stated that on the basis of sponsored proposal of opposite party No.2 dt. 21.03.2017, the opposite party No.1 issued one letter dt. 28.06.2017 to the O.P. No.2 requesting to release subsidy amount in favour of bank authority and expressed his willingness to sanction bank loan in favour of complainant. That on 12.12.2017 a circular from the Head Office of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank was circulated to O.P.No.1 vide Circular No. CREDIT/73/2017 dated 12.12.2017 to the effect that “THE BRANCHES WITH COMBINED LEVEL OF NPA+PNPA OF 50% AND ABOVE OF THE TOTAL LOANS & ADVANCES (LIST ENCLOSED), HEREIN AFTER CALLED THE SPECIFIED BRANCHES, ARE ADVICED TO RESTRICT SANCTIONING AND DISBURSING CRREDIT” and directed the concern branches for stick compliance of the same.  The O.P. No.1 immediately hang a notice in the Branch premises on 15.12.2017 and communicated the matter to their customers through said notice. That due to aforesaid embargo the O.P.No.1 was unable to disburse any loan save and except issuance of KCCs and renewal of existing KCCs, existing SHGs, Loan against Term deposits, NSCs, KVPs, LIPs, LICs. That on 19.12.2017 the O.P. No.3 by their letter informed the O.P. No.1 regarding release of subsidy amount which letter was received by the O.P. No.1 on 30.12.2017. That due to the aforesaid embargo, the O.P. No.1 unable to process/disburse the bank loan amount to the complainant and complainant was well aware about such embargo of bank but cleverly suppressed the same and it is unfortunate that even after knowing all facts and circumstances, the complainant has filed this case with some concocted story to get wrongful gain. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party No.1 and the instant complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.

            The opposite party No.2 & 3 also filed their written version separately. The facts of the defense case of both the opposite parties are same and they have stated in their separate written version that the complainant applied loan for  Mobile Retail Shop Business under SVSKP with  project cost amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- (One Lac Fifty Thousand only) to the O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.2 had sent the loan proposal with relevant documents after getting approval from the PIC to the O.P.No.1 ( the Branch Manager of BGVB, Baul Branch)  for inspection and sanction of loan and report to  O.P. No.2  within one month vide memo no. 1121(21) dated 21.03.2017. O.P. No.1 received the application of loan proposal and O.p.No.1 completed all enquiries which deemed necessary and conducted filed visit to assess and confirmed the viability of the project (loan proposal). O.P. No. 1 sent a sanctioned letter and filled Form E to the O.P. No.2 for releasing Government Subsidy amounting to Rs. 45000/- (Forty Five Thousand) (30% of Project Cost) in favour of Complainant and others vide Ref No. Baul/72/17 dated 28.06.2017. On the basis of recommendation for release of subsidy from O.P. No.1 and thereafter from O.P. No.3, West Bengal Swarojgar Corporation, West Bengal had transferred the Government subsidy amount through ECS to bank A/C No. 5070051111111 which provided by the O.P. No.1  in form E. Then the O.P. No.3  had sent a letter to the O.P. No.1 for releasing subsidy within one month vide memo No. 516/SHG &SE/DD/2017-18 dated 19.12.2017 and as per SVSKP rules prior to disbursement the loan, margin money must be taken from the  entrepreneurs. The O.P. No.1 already certified that entrepreneurs have duly deposited margin money of 5% of project cost with bank. There is no remedy of the complainant against these opposite parties.

To prove his case, the complainant has filed photo copies of (i) B.D.O. Balurghat loan proposal letter (ii) B.G.V.B Baul  Branch loan sanction letter (iii) Subsidy release letter of District SHG and SE Officer, Dakshin Dinajpur.

         On the other hand, the Opposite Party No. 1 has filed some photo copies of documents (i) intimation regarding refund of SVSKP Subsidy amount through demand draft (ii) Embrgo of BGVB vide circular No. CREDIT/73/2017 Dt. 12.12.2017 (iii) Notice Dt. 15.12.2017 in support of his defense.

          The Opposite Party Nos.2&3 also submitted some photo copies of (i) Letter dated 02.01.2019 claiming interest for returning Subsidy (ii) Letter dated 07.12.2018 of B.G.V.Bank regarding returning of SVSKP proposals along with subsidy and (iii) Booklet of SVSKP issued by Society for Self Employment of Unemployed Youth, West Bengal.

 

In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for  consideration     

 

      POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

             

         1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties?

         2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite

              Parties ?            

     3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

 

                                         DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

           We have heard argument by Ld. Advocate for the complainant, opposite party No.1 and the representatives of opposite party No. 2 & 3 at length. We have also gone through the evidence on affidavit and written argument filed by all the parties. We also perused the documents produced by the Complainant, opposite party No.1, 2 & 3 before this Commission.           

              At the time of argument Ld advocate for the Complainant narrated the fact of the case as mentioned in the plaint. He has further stated that it is established that there is a gross negligence and deficiency in rendering service. The claim petition has been filed within the limitation period. The Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party No.1 and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

            On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 argued that due to embrgo, the opposite party No.1 was unable to disburse the bank loan amount to the complainant. The O.P.No.1 never neglected or refused to disburse loan in favour of the complainant. The O.P.No.1 has refunded the total subsidy amount to the Government of West Bengal. The present complaint is mala fide and motivated and has been filed with a view to make illegal gains. So there is no question arises about deficiency in service hence, the claim petition must be dismissed.

           It is argued by representatives of the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 argued that there is no fault on the part of the opposite party No. 2 & 3 for sending subsidy amount to the opposite party No.1. It is the opposite party No.1 who failed to provide loan to the complainant and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Hence, the complaint petition should be allowed.

           Now, let us discuss all the points. 

Point No. 1   

           On perusal of materials on record, it appears that the complainant applied for loan under S.V.S.K.P. to this Opposite Party No.2 and the Opposite Party No.2 sanctioned the project of the complainant and directed to O.P. No.1 to disburse loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000.00 to the complainant and as such the complainant is a consumer under the O.P. U/S 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Consumer Protection Act,2019. 

 

Point Nos. 2 & 3   

 

           Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

           It reveals from the record that the Scheme Swami Vivekanand Swanirbhar Karmasansthan Prakalp (SVSKP) “ Atma Maryada” has  been implemented in a Block in the State Of West Bengal under the supervision of the Project Implementation Committee (PIC) with funding  pattern, Project cost = 5% Margin Money + 30% Government Subsidy + 65% Bank loan applicable to all eligible entrepreneurs and the Block Development Officer is the Chairman of the Block level PIC of Balurghat Block.

        According to the above Scheme, the Complainant applied for loan under SVSKP with project cost of Rs.1,50,000/- before the Opposite Party No.2.After maintaining formalities, the Opposite Party No.2 sent the same to the Opposite Party No.1 for sanctioning loan to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1, after completion of the all formalities, sent a sanctioned letter to the Opposite Party No.2 for releasing Government Subsidy and thereafter, as per recommendation of the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.3 transferred the Government Subsidy amount through ECS to Bank i.e. Opposite Party No.1. In spite of all these formalities the Complainant was not provided the Bank loan. Hence the case was initiated.  

          Now, the Burning question is that for whose fault the Complainant was not provided the Bank Loan under the said Scheme.

         It appears from the record that the Opposite Party no.2 after granting proposal of the Complainant for loan sent a letter vide memo no. 1121(21) dated 21 .03.2017 to the Opposite Party No.1 for inspection and report in prescribed form `E` along with proper sanction letter within one month. But the Opposite Party No.1 issued a sanction letter to the Opposite Party No.2 after laps of three months( which is violation of the rules of the Scheme) i,e on 28.06.2017 vide memo no.BUL/72/17 with a request to release subsidy amount. As per recommendation of the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.3 transferred the Subsidy amount through ECS to the Opposite Party No.1 on 23.11.2017.According to the Scheme, the Complainant submitted 5% of Marginal money to the Bank Account. On 12.12.2017 the Opposite Party No.1 declared that no Bank loan would be provided to the Complainant under the Scheme of S.V.S.K.P. due to Embargo. 

        Here, it is strange to presume that what compelled the Opposite Party No.1 not to provide loan to the Complainant whereas the Subsidy amount was credited in the Bank on 23.11.2017 and the Embargo was imposed on 12.12.2017. The Transaction I/D mentioned in the Entrepreneurs list of BGVB/BAUL BRANCH, Dakshin Dinajpur shows that the Subsidy amount was credited in the Bank on 23.11.2017. This act of the Opposite Party no.1 clearly reveals the deficiency in service on the Part of the Opposite Party No.1.  The contention of the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 that the Opposite Party No.3 informed the Opposite Party No.1 through letter dated 19.12.2017 regarding release of subsidy amount and the said letter was received by the Bank on 30.12 2017, cannot be disbelieved because of late correspondence but the matter of fact is that that the Subsidy amount was credited in the account on 23.11.2017 and this fact is well known to the Opposite Party No.1/Bank. Apart from it, after knowing the fact of the release of the subsidy amount by the Opposite Party No.3, the Complainant approached before the Opposite Party No.1/ Bank for loan but the Opposite Party No.1did not pay heed. 

         Now, as per rules of the Scheme of SVSKP, it has been mentioned in rule 16 of page 17 regarding  Disbursement of Loan that  all disbursement shall consist of loan, subsidy and owners share in right proportion and are expected to take place within 15 days of receipt of subsidy as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. No subsidy, henceforth, shall be retained by the Bank undisbursed for more than a month, failing which interest will be charged on the Subsidy amount. The Bank shall be liable to pay interest to the society for Self Employment of Unemployed Youth at the rate, charged by the bank to the entrepreneurs for their share of loan from the Bank, against the amount of Subsidy lying undisbursed with the Bank beyond one month (30) days,provided that the entrepreneur’s contribution has also been deposited to the bank. 

      Here, the Subsidy was released by the Opposite Party No.3 on 23.11.2017 whereas the Opposite Party No.1 tried to return the SVSKP proposals along with Subsidy by his letter dated 07.12.2018 i.e. after one year whereas as per rules it was required to be returned beyond one month(30) days and for that reason the Opposite Party No.2 claimed interest @ 13% on the total Subsidy amount lying in the bank beyond one month from the date of receipt of the subsidy amount by the Opposite Party No.1/bank and returned the said Demand Draft of Rs.518700/- to the Opposite Party No.1. After that the Opposite Party No.1 during the pendency of the case and keeping in dark this Commission and without informing the Opposite Party No.2&3 cunningly sent the total subsidy amount to the West Bengal Swarojgar Corporation Limited through DD on 19.09.2019 and informed this court on 29.10.2021. Such deceitful activity of the Opposite Party No.1 shows his mala fide intention towards the Government Institution as well as this Commission.

        Further, at the time of argument Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 is still agree to pay loan to the Complainant if the Subsidy amount be released again to the Opposite Party No.1. In response the representative of the Opposite Party No.2&3 submitted that it is the Government Scheme after the lapse of two years how it is possible. Here, we think that this contention of the Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Party No.1 indicates that there is intentional fault on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.

         It is contented by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that it has been published in the website of the Government of West Bengal that a loan has been disbursed to the Complainant under the Scheme of S.V.S.K.P. whereas the Complainant has not received the same. If the Complainant, in future, apply for any Government loan, the Complainant will not produce NOC to the said bank, in other words it can be said that the door of getting loan for the Complainant is closed for ever.

            The contention of Ld. Advocate for the opposite party No.1 that the information regarding Embargo imposed upon the bank was published by a notice in the notice board of the bank. But here, we think that providing loan to the complainant is not a public matter rather it is an individual matter. So, the opposite party No.1 was required to inform the matter of Embargo to the complainant by way of cell phone message or by telephone or by sending letter through post. But that was not done by the opposite party No.1 for which the complainant was unknown to the factor Embargo.

        Thus, it is crystal clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 2.

         In view of the above mentioned discussions, it has been established that the Complainant is a bona fide consumer to the Opposite Party No.1 and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.

       Accordingly, all the points are decided in favour of the Complainant. 

   Hence, it is

                                                        O R D E R E D 

 

            That the Consumer Case No. 27 of 2019 is allowed on contest in part against the Opposite Party No.1 and dismissed against Opposite Party No.2 & 3.

           The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant by issuing an account payee chaque in favour of the complainant  within 45 days from the date of passing of this order failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law.

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.