C.C. No.248/2022

Sabita Prusty,

W/o. Saroja Kanta Sahoo,

Proprietor of M/s. Maa Sarala Coir Industry,

At- Dhalipanga,

P.O.- Kiadingri,

P.S.- Ersama,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.                                                 …………. Complainant  

                             (Versus)

1. The Branch Manager, 

Canara Bank, Rahama Branch,

At/P.O.- Rahama,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur- 754140.

2. The General Manager, Canara Bank,

Bhubaneswar Circle Office,

Sachivalaya Marg, P.B. No.104,

Bhubaneswar- 751022,

Dist.- Khurda. …..… Opposite parties

3. The Regional Manager, Coir Board,

Regional Office, At- Jagamara (Udyogpuri),

P.O.- Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar,

Dist.- Khurda- 751030.…….Proforma Opp. Party

For Complainant………..Mr. N.C. Dash & Associates

For O.P. No.1 & 2………..Mr. A.K. Samantaray & Associates

For O.P. No.3………..Mr. D.K. Mohanty & Associates

ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                          JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite party No.1 to recalculate the outstanding loan account taking into account the rate of interest to be charged under the “Coir Udyami Yojana” scheme, release the mortgage t he land and building and pay Rs.20,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment”.

            The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant availed a loan from opposite party No.1 being subsided by opposite party No.3 as the Ministry of MS & ME (Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises), Govt. of India has formulated a credit linked subsidy scheme namely “Coir Udyami Yojana” for rejuvenation, modernization and technology upgradetion of the Coir Industry and to facilitate sustainable development of the Coir Industry in the Country within aim to generate more employment opportunities especially for women and the weaker sections of people in rural areas. As the complainant was having experience/skilled in making Coir Yarn, Coir Mat and other Coir products and having engaged in manufacturing of Coir products under the name and style of “Maa Sarala Coir Industries”. Under the above scheme it is stipulated that the beneficiary contribution is 5% of project cost. As the project cost is Rs.10,00,000/-, the complainant being the beneficiary has deposited her contribution of Rs.50,000/- in her account lying in the opposite party No.1 on 02.3.2016.  The Coir Board, Govt. of India released t he subsidy amount of Rs.4,00,000/-  to opposite party No.1 in respect to the loan availed by the complainant under the “Coir Udyami Yojana” on 16.6.2016. Though the said subsidy amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was received by opposite party No.1 has created subsidy fixed deposit on 24.01.2017 i.e. after passing of seven months. But these seven months inertest on the subsidy amount was not credited to the loan account of the complainant. As per the above scheme, the opposite party No.1 supposed to charge interest @ 9.15%, but by adopting unfair means, the opposite party No.1 has charged interest @ 15.40% to 15.90% from 02.3.2016 to 12.3.2018. in this way they have charged interest of Rs.2,04,945/- instead of actual interest of Rs.1,17,940/-. Due to non operation of the machineries for a long period, it was deteriorated/ rusted day by day with passage of time and now the same has been in damaged conditions. Being deprived of getting working capital for her unit, not able to earn anything from her, unit, forced to deposit higher rate of interest than stipulated under the scheme clearly revealed the monopoly attitude of opposite party No.1. In the meanwhile the opposite party No.1 has issued a legal notice called upon the complaint to pay Rs.5,35,339.93 towards outstanding loan amount within seven days the opposite party No.1 will auction the landed property including the building of the complainant. 

            Complainant who had taken loan from opposite parties has filed the present consumer complaint suppressing the fact regarding pendency of Civil Suit (III) No.43/2022 before Learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Jagatsinghpur for recovery of loan amount. The cause of action relates to 2014 to 2017 and there is no specific allegation as to how there is deficiency in service and as to why complainant has slept over the matter for about 6/7 years and that too till Suit for recovery was filed and also suppressed the said fact. Since opposite parties have filed the Suit prior to filing of consumer complaint it is not trust and proper on our part to interfere. In the judicial process judicial discipline requires that the proceeding started 1^st should be adjudicated and the present consumer complaint is intended to file to escape from the Suit and the same is also barred by limitation for which no petition for condonation of delay has been filed.

            The relation between complainant and opposite parties is that of Debtor and Creditor and there is no element of deficiency in service and we find no merit in the consumer complaint and accordingly the consumer complaint is dismissed. No cost. 

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 12^th July,2024.