BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The Complainant is a Law abiding person & the Complainant is a bonafied consumer to the O.Ps. (1 & 2). A Loan under PMEGP Scheme was sanctioned in favour of the complainant in the financial year 2010-11 through the Bank of BangiyaGraminVikash bank at Pratapdighi Branch on 30.11.2010. The sanction amount of this said loan was Rs. 1,80,000/- (one lakh eighty thousand) but the said bank stated in Loan sanction letter that 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) would be for Margin money and Fixed Deposit of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) for security money which are own contribution to be deposited by the Complainant, out of the said loan 1,80,000/- bank only handed over Rs.1,30,000/- (One Lakh Thirty Thousand) through an Loan Account being No. 5434300001307 on dated 30/07/2011. The Complainant paid said loan amount in monthly installment according the condition of the said bank lastly on 08.04.2015. After that the said Bank neither returned the Margin money of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) nor returned the subsidy amount Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) till now. The Complainant informed the said problem to the O.Ps many times through letter but the O.Ps could not take necessary action only verbally informed that they would disburse the said amount as early as possible. Thereafter the said bank offered a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) and also assured the previous disbursed amount also would be adjustedwith this loan. The complainant accepted this and the said bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) on dated 14.09.2017 and the complainant also started to deposit the installment according the condition of the said bank. After a few days the complainant’s financial problem for illness the complainant could not pay said installment of the said loan, the said bank did not whisper of previous undisbursed amount ; suddenly without any intimation the op forcefully suspended the account of the guarantor of the said loan. The complainant informed this sending letters dated 18.08.2018 to the O.P. No.1 for consideration of this fact andto refund the said undisbursed amount and for taking necessary action. The O.P. Bank took a vague and baseless ground to cheat this complainant’s money. The Complainant is entitled to get the compensation for the undisbursed amount along with the compensation for the mental agony and suffering and unnecessary harassment day by day. The cause of action of this case originally has arisen on 18.08.2018 and within the jurisdiction of this Commission.The complainant has prayed for directing the ops 1) To pay said undisbursed amount with interest of RS. 1,00,000/-. 2) To pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to their complainant for mental agony 3)To pay the litigation cost of RS. 7,000/- to the complainant for conduct of this case 4) To release the suspended account of the guarantor of the said loan and adjust the complainant’s loan with Margin money and Subsidy amount and 5) To give other reliefs which the Commission may deem fit and proper.
Notices of the case were duly served upon the ops, however the Regional Manager of O.Ps filed a written version but ultimately preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against it.
Points for determination are:
1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and evidence produced by Complainant. On appraisal of the materials on records along with bundle of facts it appears that the complainant is a Consumer in respect of the transaction made by him with the O.Ps. The case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
In his examination in chief the complainant has not stated on which date and how the margin money was deposited by him. It is the duty of the complainant to prove his case with sufficient evidence against the ops.
Now on careful analysis of the materials on record, it appears that the OPs were directed to produce all the relevant documents lying in their custody in respect of the concerned loan account in the name of the complainant Asit Baran Kabi vide order dated 24.01.2020. In compliance of the said order Ops filed some documents. We have gone through the said documents carefully keeping the documents filed by the complainant side by side. It appears that in consideration of the project of the above beneficiary/Institution, Bank/Branch has sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- on 15.01.2011. On condition the bank shall arrange to deposit the amount of Govt. Subsidy Rs. 50,000/- in Term Deposit in the name of beneficiary for 3 years from the date of release of first installment of the loan, It is confirmed that no interest will be paid on the amount of TDR by the Bank and no interest will be charged on the corresponding amount of the loan for a period of 3 years. The Bank is aware of , that if the advance goes ‘bad’ before 3 years, Govt. Subsidy will be adjusted to liquidate loan liability of the beneficiary with interest. Recovery, if any, affected later will be remitted to the commission. Now, it appears from the documents submitted that the complainant the complainant has not filed any receipt showing that he deposited Rs. 20,000/- as margin money. So, it appears that the complainant either misplaced some documents or he mis understood the terms and conditions of the loan. Subsidy has to be adjusted to liquidate loan liability of the beneficiary with interest. Recovery, if any, affected later is remitted to the commission. Here, if the loan account was declared as closed after full and final payment by the beneficiary; there is every possibility of remitting back the Govt subsidy to the concerned Commission. The beneficiary is not entitled to get the subsidy in cash directly. Here in the instant case the complainant obtained two sets of loans, he has no grievances against the 2nd loan which was sanctioned to him on 14.09.2017. It appears that his first loan account was closed on 08.04.2015 as per aforementioned terms of loan . In the complaint all grievances are against the manner of closure of the first loan. He filed the instant case on 18.03.2019 after more than 3 years which is barred by law. The complainant set the consumer case in motion after getting notice for recovery of the 2nd loan after having been declared as NPA on 28.06.2018. Therefore, the complainant has got no cause of action to file the instant case against the OP. The complainant has failed to substantiate his grievances as alleged in the complaint with cogent evidence. He has failed to proof the elements of deficiency of service against the Op. Therefore he is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
Both the points are decided accordingly.
Resultantly the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That CC/153 of 2019 be and the same is dismissed exparte against the OPs.
No order as to costs is passed.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to the complainant free of cost.
