Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/42/2015

M.Sathish S/o. H.Murigendrappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank Chitradurga Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.M.Govinda Reddy

17 Mar 2016

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 27/04/2015

     DISPOSED ON: 17/03/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

CC. NO. 42/2015 DATED:  17th March 2016

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.H.RAMASWAMY,               MEMBER

                                         B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)

SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI,       

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   MEMBER

COMPLAINANT

M. Sathish, S/o H. Murigendrappa, R/o Utsavamba Nilaya,  Near KGID Office, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Smt/Sri. M. Govinda Reddy, Advocate)

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Chitradurga Branch, Jagalur Mahalingappa Tower, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   2. The Deputy General Manager,  Corporation Bank, New Basava Vana, New Cotton Market, Hubli-580 020.   3. The Chief General Manager, NABARD, Karnataka Regional Office, No.46, NABARD Towers, K.G. Road, Bangalore-09.   (Rep by Smt/Sri. Sri.C.J. Lakshminarsimha,  Advocate for OP No.1 and 2 and OP No.3 Party in Person)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDER

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OPs for a direction to the OPs to pay subsidy amount of Rs.6,25,000 /- with Bank rate of interest, cost and such other reliefs.

 

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, the Department of Animal Husbandry in Government of India launched a scheme called Integrated Development of small Ruminants and Rabbits. The beneficiaries are selected by a committee of authority and the loans are provided by the Bank and 25% of the subsidy amount is payable through financial Bank by the NABARD.  Complainant is one of the beneficiary under the said Scheme and sanctioned loan to the project worth of Rs.25,00,000/- for the sheep breeding unit.  Complainant has to invest margin money of Rs.6,25,000/- and the Bank has to lend loan of Rs.18,75,000/- and subsidy amount of Rs.6,25,000/- to the beneficiary has to be payable to the financial Bank by the NABARD and the financial Bank has to claim subsidy amount from the NABARD and credit the same to the loan account of the beneficiary.  The OP No.1 Bank sanctioned loan and released only Rs.12,50,000/- but, failed to release the entire amount.  The first installment of loan was disbursed on 28.03.2012 through loan A/c No.AGIL/01/120001 and the rate of interest on the said loan was fixed at 12.35% p.a.  Complainant has no right to claim subsidy amount directly from the OP No.3.  Complainant invested the deficit amount of Rs.6,25,000/- by borrowing loan from others with higher rate of interest and he has implemented the project and procured the sheep and repaid the loan installments up to date.  OP No.1 has responsibility and bounden duty to claim the subsidy amount from the OP No.3 through OP No.2 and credit the subsidy amount to the loan account of the complainant.  Complainant requested the OP No.1 to look after the claim of subsidy from OP No.3 and OP No.1 informed that, subsidy claim had been sent to the OP No.3 through OP No.2 but, there was no proper response to that effect.  It is further stated that, the subsidy amount should have been credited to the account of complainant within six months from the date of loan but, it went in vain inspite of so repeated reminders.  Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice on 21.02.2015 but, no subsidy amount was paid to the complainant.  OP No.3 replied to the notice through letter dated 04.03.2015 stating that they have not been received any records pertaining to subsidy claim of complainant for Rs.6,25,000/- under IDSRR scheme from Corporation Bank and they have no financial liability to complainant.  The nonpayment of subsidy amount to the complainant is deficiency in service on the part of OPs, which caused financial loss and mental agony.  The cause of action to file this complaint was arose on 28.03.2012 when the loan under IDSRR scheme was granted to the complainant and also on nonpayment of subsidy amount within six months from the date of loan.     Therefore, the conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency of service so, he sustained mental agony and financial loss etc., and prayed for allow the complaint.

3.     On service of notice on OPs, OP No.1 and 2 appeared through Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate and filed version.  OP No.1 and 2 filed version and denied the contents of complaint and there is no cause of action to file this complaint.  It is submitted that, the total scheme of the complainant amounts to Rs.25,00,000/-  and out of which, the Bank loan is Rs.12,50,000/-, the borrower's margin is 25% i.e., Rs.6,25,000/- and the remaining 25% i.e., Rs.6,25,000/-  may be paid by the OP No.3 i.e., NABARD if, the complainant followed all the terms and conditions stipulated in the Bank and also in the Scheme Guidelines.  But, the complainant has not paid his margin money to his account for completing the project.  It is further stated that, complainant has not produced any bills, receipts, vouchers and other documents which are necessary to the Bank under the scheme for consideration of his claim for subsidy and he is not entitled for any subsidy under the said scheme.   It is further stated that, the Bank authorities have visited the unit of the complainant and came to know that the unit of complainant does not exists and the business of the unit is also not running and there is no sheep at all in the place shown by the complainant at the time of availing the loan under the scheme and instructed the complainant to submit necessary reply and documents to the OPs with respect to non running of unit and also violation of Banking rules and scheme, for which the complainant to escape from the legal liability, issued legal notice by making unnecessary and untenable reasons and he has misutilized the sanctioned amount and deviated the same for some other purpose which are not under the guidelines of the scheme.  It is further submitted that, the subsidy offered to be paid is not a "service" as defined under Consumer Protection Act and he is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.      

 4.    OP No.3 appeared through its Assistant General Manager and filed version and denied all the allegations made in the complaint.  It is stated that, the entire transaction pertaining to which the complaint is that, the complainant is not a consumer of OP No.3 within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the C.P Act because OP No.3 has not rendered any service to the complainant under any circumstances whatsoever and there is no relationship of consumer and service provider, therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP No.3.  It is further stated that, the present case is fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New  Delhi in Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and others, wherein it has been held as below:

" …………….. The Principal question is that the grant of subsidy.  The order passed by the Learned Commission is supported by authorities, which clearly go to show that the subsidy offered to be paid is not "service" as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Consequently, the complainant is not a "Consumer"……….

 

It is further stated that, the complainant has filed this complaint against non-granting of the subsidy to the project under the Government of India's integrated Development of Small Ruminants and Rabbits, a Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on its part and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  The NABARD has not received any subsidy claim for the complainant's project and there is no cause of action arisen as NABARD has neither received nor rejected the subsidy claim of the complainant and there is no relationship of consumer and service provider and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.   

        5.     Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence reiterating the contents of complaint and documents are marked at Ex.A-1 to   Ex.A-7. 

6.     On behalf of OP No.1 and 2 one Sri. S.M. Anand Murthy S/o Shivalingaiah, Senior Manager of OP No.1 and 2 examined as  DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and filed one document, marked as Ex.B-1.  On behalf of OP No. 3 one Sri. M.C. Kashikar Assistant General Manager of OP 3 examined as  DW-2 by filing affidavit evidence and no documents have been produced.      

 

7.     Written arguments have been filed and oral arguments heard.

 

8. Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that, he is a consumer and the OPs have committed deficiency of service in releasing the subsidy amount and he is entitled for compensation as stated in his complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        9. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

        Point No.1:- Negative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

                                        ::REASONS::

 

10. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, complainant is one of the beneficiary under the Scheme called Integrated Development of Small Ruminants and Rabbits and sanctioned loan to the project worth of Rs.25,00,000/- for the sheep breeding unit.  Complainant has to invest margin money of Rs.6,25,000/- and the Bank has to lend loan of Rs.18,75,000/- and subsidy amount of Rs.6,25,000/- to the beneficiary has to be payable to the financial Bank by the NABARD and the financial Bank has to claim subsidy amount from the NABARD and credit the same to the loan account of the beneficiary.  The OP No.1 Bank sanctioned loan and released only Rs.12,50,000/- but, failed to release the remaining amount.  The first installment of loan was disbursed on 28.03.2012 through loan A/c No.AGIL/01/120001 and the rate of interest on the said loan was fixed at 12.35% p.a.  Complainant has no right to claim subsidy amount directly from the OP No.3.  Complainant invested the deficit amount of Rs.6,25,000/- by borrowing loan from others and he has implemented the project and procured the sheep and repaid the loan installments up to date.  It is argued by the complainant that, OP No.1 has responsibility and bounden duty to claim the subsidy amount from the OP No.3 through OP No.2 and credit the subsidy amount to the loan account of the complainant.  Complainant requested the OP No.1 for subsidy amount from OP No.3.   OP No.1 informed that, subsidy claim had been sent to the OP No.3 through OP No.2 but, there was no proper response.   The subsidy amount should have been credited to the account of complainant within six months from the date of loan but, it went in vain. OP No.3 replied to the notice through letter dated 04.03.2015 stating that they have not been received any records pertaining to subsidy claim of complainant for Rs.6,25,000/- under IDSRR scheme from Corporation Bank.  The nonpayment of subsidy amount to the complainant is deficiency in service on the part of OPs, which caused financial loss and mental agony, therefore, prays for allowing the complaint. 

11.   In support of his contention, the complainant has relied on his affidavit evidence in which he has reiterated the contents of complaint.  Complainant has also relied on documents like copy of statement of loan account of complainant marked as Ex.A-1, office copy of legal notice dated 21.02.2015 marked as Ex.A-2, postal receipts and acknowledgements marked as Ex.A-3 and A-4, reply to the notice dated 04.03.2015 marked as Ex.A-5, copy of letter dated 29.10.2012 written by OP No.1 written to OP No.2 along with subsidy claim papers marked as Ex.A-6, Copy of letter dated 16.06.2014 written by OP No.1 written to OP No.2 along with subsidy claim papers marked as Ex.A-7.

12.   On the other hand, it is argued by the counsel for OP No.1 and 2 that, the total scheme of the complainant amounts to Rs.25,00,000/-  and out of which, the Bank loan is Rs.12,50,000/-, the borrower's margin is 25% i.e., Rs.6,25,000/- and the remaining 25% i.e., Rs.6,25,000/-  may be paid by the OP No.3 i.e., NABARD if, the complainant followed all the terms and conditions stipulated in the Bank and also in the Scheme Guidelines.  But, the complainant has not paid his margin money to his account for completing the project.  The Bank authorities have visited the unit of the complainant and came to know that the unit of complainant does not exists and the business of the unit is also not running and there is no sheep at all in the place shown by the complainant at the time of availing the loan under the scheme and instructed the complainant to submit necessary reply and documents to the OPs with respect to non running of unit and also violation of Banking rules and scheme.   Complainant has utilized the sanctioned amount for some other purpose which are not under the guidelines of the scheme.  The subsidy offered to be paid is not a "service" as defined under Consumer Protection Act and he is not a consumer.

13.   In support of their contention, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 have relied on affidavit evidence of one Sri. S.M. Anand Murthy S/o Shivalingaiah, Senior Manager of OP No.1 and 2 and relied on one document like copies of Bank statements of complainant marked as Ex.B-1.  

14.   It is argued by the OP No.3 that, the entire transaction pertaining to the complaint is that, the complainant is not a consumer of OP No.3 within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the C.P Act because, OP No.3 has not rendered any service to the complainant under any circumstances whatsoever and there is no relationship of consumer and service provider. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP No.3.  As per the decision of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New   Delhi in Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and others, the subsidy offered to be paid is not a "service" as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant has filed this complaint against non-granting of the subsidy to the project under the Government of India's integrated Development of Small Ruminants and Rabbits, a Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme.  The NABARD has not received any subsidy claim for the complainant's project nor rejected the subsidy claim of the complainant and there is no relationship of consumer and service provider and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.   

15.   In support of its contention, OP No.3 has relied on affidavit evidence of one Sri. M.C. Kashikar, Assistant General Manager.  

        16.   We have carefully gone through the complaint, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by complainant and the version filed by OP No.1 to 3.  It is seen that, the complainant applied for sanction of loan to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- from the OP/Corporation Bank for the project of sheep breeding unit.  For the said project, complainant has to invest margin money of Rs.6,25,000/- and the subsidy amount has to be claimed by the financial Bank from the NABARD and credit the same to the loan account of the beneficiary.  It is argued by the counsel for OP No.1 and 2 that, complainant has not paid his margin money of Rs.6,25,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the Bank and Scheme and even the complainant has not produced any bills, receipts vouchers and other documents for consideration of the subsidy amount.  It is further argued that, the Bank authorities have visited the unit of the complainant and came to know that the unit of complainant does not exists and the business of the unit is also not running and there is no sheep at all in the place shown by the complainant at the time of availing the loan under the scheme and instructed the complainant to submit necessary reply and documents to the OPs with respect to non running of unit and also violation of Banking rules and scheme, but complainant failed to submit the same. he has mis-utilized the sanctioned amount and deviated the same for some other.  The subsidy offered to be paid is not a "service" as defined under Consumer Protection Act and he is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service on their part.  As per the decision relied on supra by the OP No.3, the subsidy offered to be paid is not a "service" and the complainant is not a "consumer" Considering the grounds urged in the complaint, version, affidavits and documents filed by both the parties we come to the conclusion that, complainant failed to prove his case in getting the compensation and accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.

 

17.  Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following.

ORDER

        It is ordered that the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.

 

Parties to bear their own costs.   

 

        (This order is made with the consent of Members after the correction of the draft on 17/03/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                         MEMBER                      

 

 

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

-Nil-

On behalf of OP No.1 and 2 one Sri. S.M. Anand Murthy S/o Shivalingaiah, Senior Manager of OP No.1 and 2 as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence.  

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP No.3:

 

On behalf of OP No.3 one Sri. M.C. Kashikar, Assistant General Manager by filing affidavit evidence

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Copy of statement of loan account of complainant
02	Ex-A-2:-	Office copy of legal notice dated 21.02.2015
03	Ex-A-3 & 4:-	Postal receipts and acknowledgements
04	Ex.A-5:-	Reply to the notice dated 04.03.2015
05	Ex.A-6:-	Copy of letter dated 29.10.2012 written by OP No.1 written to OP No.2 along with subsidy claim papers
06	Ex.A-7:-	Copy of letter dated 16.06.2014 written by OP No.1 written to OP No.2 along with subsidy claim papers

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP No.1 & 2:

01

Ex-B-1:-

Copy of statement of loan account of complainant

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                         MEMBER                      

 

 

PRESIDENT

Rhr.,