IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADIKERI

O R D E R

           SMT. N.R. ROOPA, MEMBER

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite party (herein after called as opposite party) under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act,2019.  The complainant prays to direct the opposite party to close the loan account of the complainant as per the conditions of the scheme under which the loan was disbursed and to pay the charges of this complaint along with damages to the complainant.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under;

1. That the complainant is a Planter carrying out his avocation in plantation in his village.  The opposite party had circulated the news that the said center will offer financial assistance for the entrepreneurs in different avocations including installation and business in pepper processing unit under the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation programme (PMEGP).  The complainant was made known the existence of ‘Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme’ (PMEGP) under Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC).  The KVIC informed the complainant to approach the opposite party who is the facilitator.  The complainant was sanctioned a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Fifty Thousand only) loan under the said scheme by the KVIC through the opposite party.
2. That the said scheme also enables the complainant eligible for the subsidy of Rs.3,50,000/- from the sponsoring agency i.e. KVIC.  The complainant was made to undergo training and was also issued a certificate to that effect.
3. That the complainant was made to execute an agreement for Trems loans on 21-02-2014  with the opposite party wherein it was agreed that the complainant has to pay seven yearly installments w.e.f.20-02-2015.  The opposite party has issued a letter to the KVIC regarding the sanction of Rs.9,50,000/- on 21-02-2014, for Pepper Processing Plant.  That the opposite party has sanctioned credit at 11.5% interest p.a. and KVIC had disbursed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as subsidy amount in favour of the complainant and the same is to be kept in the separate account maintained by opposite party.  The complainant was assured by the opposite parties at the time of availing loan as well as undergoing compulsory training that he is entitled for the subsidy.  It was also agreed that the subsidy amount shall be kept in separate account without any accumulation of interests and the corresponding amount out of the loan disbursed shall not be charged with interests.  Thus the complainant was paying the installments of the loan along with interests, only on the insistence of the opposite party.
4. That to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant, he was informed by the opposite party to approach him immediately, and accordingly when the complainant approached the opposite party, he was informed that he has to pay an amount of Rs.5,64,000/- as balance payment of the loan and also informed him that the subsidy amount is not received by the opposite party.  No further clarification was afforded by the opposite parties on personal enquiry by the complainant.  The complainant has filed an application under RTI at the opposite party seeking the certified copies of the entire communications between the complainant, the opposite party and KVIC and he has not received any documents.
5. That the opposite party is a service provider in finance sector and has offer loan to the complainant under a scheme and made the complainant undergo training for few days at a faraway place, investing his precious time and energy.  The entire exercise was o n the insistence of the opposite party and also because of their promise of offering subsidy on the loan.  The subsidy was also disbursed but for the lethargic attitude of the opposite party, the complainant was denied his right to enjoy the same.  Over and above that, the opposite party has forced the complainant to pay exorbitant interests on the loan amount in spite of the protests of the complainant.  The said loan is also reflected in the RTC of the property bearing Sy.No.57/2 of Marandoda Village in which the Pepper Processing unit is situated in spite of the condition that no collateral is required for the said loan and thereby the opposite party has also curbed the right to utilize the benefits available for the planters by producing the RTC as the encumbrance is reflected in the same.  The said act of the opposite party has caused great financial loss to the complainant. 
6. That the complainant approached his Tax Consultant seeking clarification and he was informed by the Expert that he has already paid excess amount of Rs.7,415/- as on 31-3-2018, to the opposite party and the opposite party has to refund the same to the complainant.  The said acts of the opposite party have cause great financial loss to the complainant along with hardship, damages and injury.  The opposite party has thus committed deficiency in service resulting in loss to the complainant.
7. That the complainant filed a complaint before this Hon’ble Authority in complaint No.37/2018 and the opposite party had appeared and filed the versions.   But in view of the assurance of the opposite party that the said matter will be resolved amicably the complaint had not participated in the case and the same was dismissed for default.  But subsequent to the said  dismissal, the opposite party refused to settle the matter after delaying the  matter and issued a letter the complainant on 4-7-2020 that only Rs.3,50,000/- is adjusted as subsidy and demanded the payment of the difference amount.  Hence the above complaint. 

3. On receipt of the complaint notice has been ordered to issue to opposite party.  Inspite of service of notice opposite party remained absent without sufficient reason and cause.  Hence opposite party called out as absent and placed exparte.

4. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence on his behalf reproducing what he has stated in his complaint.  The complainant has produced documents along with complaint.  We have heard the arguments of the complainant side and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant scrupulously.

5. Based on the above materials the following points arise for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if so whether he is entitled for the relief sought for?

2. What order?

6. Our findings on the above points are as under;

• Point No.1:- In the Affirmative
• Point No.2:- As per the final order for the

                       following;

R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1:- As looking in to the averments of the complaint, the complainant is a planter carrying out his avocation in plantation in his village.  The opposite party offered financial assistance for installation of pepper processing unit under the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP).  The complainant was made known the existence of PMEGP under Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC).  The KVIC informed the complainant to approach the opposite party who is the facilitator.  The loan sanctioned a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- under the said scheme by the KVIC through the opposite party.  The complainant eligible for the subsidy of Rs.3,50,000/- from the sponsoring agency i.e.KVIC.  The complainant was made to undergo training and also issued a certificate to that effect.  This transaction clearly shows on seeing the documents produced by the complainant marked as Ex.P1 to P6.  Particularly Ex.P8 document clearly shows that the loan is government subsidy of Rs.3,50,000/- sanctioned by the KVIC.

8. It is further case of the complainant that on 21/02/2014, the agreement executed between complainant and opposite party for complainant has to pay seven yearly installments w.e.f 20/02/2015.  The opposite party has issued a letter to KVIC regarding the sanction of Rs.9,50,000/- on 21/02/2014 for Pepper processing plant.  The opposite party has sanctioned credit at 11.5% interest per annum and KVIC had disbursed subsidy amount in favour of the complainant and same is to be kept in the separate account maintained by opposite party.  The complainant was paying the installments of the loan along with interest regularly.  After that the opposite party informed to the complainant that he has to pay an amount of Rs.5,64,000/- as balance payment of the loan and also that the subsidy amount is not received by the opposite party.  In this case, the subsidy amount recovery by opposite party from KVIC is only burden of opposite party but not the complainant.  This is also clearly shows on seeking the documents produced by the complainant marked as EX P7 to Ex P10.

9. On perusal of Ex P13 document, it is clearly shows, that the opposite party is received subsidy amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from KVIC for complainants’ PMEGP loan.  According to bank statement, the complainant has repaid the loan amount of Rs.7,98,797/- to the opposite party.  It is also clearly shows on seeking the document marked as Ex.P12.  In this regard, we come to the conclusion that, the opposite party is negligent and there is deficiency in service on his part.

10. We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant.  Though notice has been duly served on opposite party, he did not appear, hence placed Exparte.  Under such circumstances, non appearance and non filing of version, draw an adverse inference that, the opposite party has admitted the claim of the complainant in the light of the decision reported in “2018(1) CPR 314 (NC) in the case of M/s. Singla Builders and Promoters Ltd., vs. Amankumar Garg, wherein it is held that “non-filing of written version to complaint before the Forum, amounts to admission of the allegations leveled against them in consumer complaint”.  On careful scrutiny of the case of the complainant and on the background of oral and documentary evidence, it is vivid and clear that the complainant who comes to Commission seeking relief has proved with clear and tangible material evidence.  Accordingly we come to the conclusion that the opposite party directed to close the loan account of the complainant as per the conditions of the scheme under which the loan was disbursed and compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.  Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 in the affirmative.

11. Point No.2:- In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed.

2. The opposite party is directed to close loan account of the complainant bearing No.PMEGP/01/140002 as per the conditions of the scheme under which the loan was disbursed.
3.  The opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
4. This order is to be complied by the opposite party within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to have a redressal as per law.
5. Furnish copy of the order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Commission on this 12^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021)

            (N.R. ROOPA)                        (M.S.RAMACHANDRA)     

                MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT