Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/70/2016

N.R. Yahasanulla, S/o. N.R. Karim Saheb - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N.Anandakumar, N.Sobha Rani

05 May 2018

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date: 18-07-2016                                                                                                               Order Date:  05-05-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. M.Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

SATURDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

C.C.No.70/2016

Between

1. N.R.Yahasanulla, S/o. N.R. Karim Saheb,

Residing at Sandu Street, Mango Nagar,

Damalcheruvu Village,Pakala Mandal,

Tirupati Revenue Division,

Chittoor District.                                                                 …. Complainants

 

And

1. The Branch Manager,

Indian Bank, Kallur Branch,

Chittoor District.

 

2. The Zonal Manager,

Agriculture Banking Section,

Zonal Office, Indian Bank,

Chittoor Town, Chittoor District.

 

3. The Chief General Manager,

Rural Banking Division,

Indian Bank, H.O.No.66,

Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.                                      .… Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 13.04.2018 and upon perusing the complaint, chief affidavit, written version, written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri. N. Anand Kumar and M.Jayachandra Reddy,counsels for the complainants and Sri. G.Subramanyam, counsel for opposite parties having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 for the following reliefs: i) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 not to insist the complainant to repay the subsidy amount of        Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest which was lost due to own negligence of  opposite parties not submitting the papers to the NABARD within stipulated time as per the guidelines of Government of India, ii) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as damages for non submission of subsidy papers to NABARD within time by the opposite parties and caused loss of benefit of subsidy to the complainant from NABARD which amounts to deficiency in service and causing mental agony by threatening the complainant that his account will be put in CIBIL as NPA (Non Performance Account) and see that no bank will  given loan to complainant in future and iii) to pay costs of the complaint.

         2. The brief averments of the complaint are:  that N.R.Yahasanulla being an  agriculturalist and doing mango business, approached the opposite party No.1 Indian Bank, Kallur Branch, Chittoor District on 01.12.2008 for an agricultural term loan of Rs.32,00,000/- for construction of permanent Mango Mandy Shed with farmers rest room at Mango Nagar Damalcheruvu village, on Mangalampeta to Pakala Road, Chittoor District as the Gupta Committee has recommended for agriculture development with  25% of subsidy loan which will be borne by NABARD. According to this scheme complainant is entitled for term loan of Rs.24,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- shall be borne by NABARD. On 21.02.2009 opposite party No.2 the Zonal Manager, Agricultural Banking Section and Zonal Office, Indian Bank, Chittoor District sanctioned loan with 25% of subsidy from NABARD.

         That the opposite party No.1 has released loan as follows:-

1. Rs. 3,00,000/-  as first installment on 30.03.2009
2. Rs.6,00,000/-   as second installment on 14.10.2009
3. Rs.6,00,000/-   as third installment on 22.12.2009
4. Rs.5,00,000/-   as fourth installment on 04.03.2010
5. Rs. 2,00,000/-  as fifth installment on 15.04.2010
6. Rs.2,00,000/-   as sixth installment on 27.11.2010

         Thus total amount of Rs.24,00,000/- was released by the first opposite party and the complainant has to repay the same in 9 (Nine) years with moratorium of 2 (Two) years i.e. within a total period of 11 years.

        3. The complainant made the repayments as follows:-

             1. Rs.4,58,000/- on 23.11.2011

             2. Rs.1,50,000/- on 26.11.2011

             3. Rs.3,05,000/- on 17.12.2012

             4. Rs.5,00,000/- on 25.04.2013

             5. Rs.4,90,000/- on 29.06.2013

             6. Rs.3,00,000/- on 15.07.2013

             7. Rs.3,00,000/- on 07.09.2013

             8. Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.01.2014

        Thus the complainant has paid Rs.28,03,000/- as on 08.01.2014. That the complainant is further contending that he has cleared the loan in advance within six (6) years as against 11 years. As per the guidelines of NABARD opposite party No.1 has to submit the claim application to NABARD for release of subsidy amount of Rs.8,00,000/- out of the total cost of project work is Rs.32,00,000/- .

        4. That the complainant is further contending that, the opposite party has sanctioned loan amount on 21.02.2009. Opposite partyNo.1 has to make an application to NABARD for release of subsidy amount of Rs.8,00,000/- within 18 months i.e. on or before 21.08.2010. But the complainant came to know that opposite party No.1 did not send the application for subsidy within the stipulated time; but sent the same to NABARD on 02.11.2011 by which time the claim is barred as per the guidelines of Government of India. The opposite party No.1 has lost the subsidy amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from NABARD due to its own negligence only. But the complainant has cleared the debt in the month of January, 2014. The Branch Manager of opposite party No.1 informed the complainant in the month of December, 2015 that still the complainant has to pay Rs.8,00,000/- with interest. Unless pays the same the account will be put in CIBIL as NPA and see that no loan will be given to him in future. There is negligence and also deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties due to which the complainant suffered mental agony. Hence the complaint.  

        5. The opposite party No.1 filed its written version and the same is adopted by opposite parties 2 and 3. In the written version the opposite parties denied complaint  allegations Para wise including the sanction and releasing of loan amount of Rs.24,00,000/- and also the repayments made by the complainant. And further contended that, for release of the subsidy amount, the time limit of 18 months is stipulated for completion of the project work from the date of sanction of loan with a grace period of six months if reasons are justified for the delay.  That the complainant beneficiary should complete the project work within the stipulated time (18months from the date of sanction of loan) and to submit required papers for claiming subsidy. The opposite parties further contended that the total cost of the above project is Rs.32,00,000/-. Project work is to be completed with the bank loan of Rs.24,00,000/- and the complainants has to bear an amount of  Rs.8,00,000/- from his own funds and the project work has to be completed within 18 months from the date of disbursement of first installment as  prescribed by NABARD.

         6. That the opposite parties further contending that the loan amount of Rs.24,00,000/- was sanctioned on 21.02.2009 vide Sanction Ticket No. CO/BR/ABD/ST No. 28/2008-2009. The complainant executed the Demand Promissory Note on 14.03.2009 for Rs.24,00,000/- in favour of the opposite party No.1 and also executed Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds on 18.03.2009 bearing No.582/2009 of S.R.O as security. That the opposite party No.1 released the first installment of Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.03.2009, and final  installment of Rs. 2,00,000/- was released on 27.11.2010. That though the grace period also over by 30.03.2011 the complainant could not complete the project work in spite of repeated requests of the opposite party No.1. At last the complainant could complete the project work by 16.02.2012 Vide Completion and Commissioning Certificate signed by the Complainant/Borrower, Bank Engineer and the then Branch Manager of opposite party No.1. The complainant/Borrower submitted the required documents to NABARD for sanction of subsidy, to opposite party No.1 on 08.05.2012 requesting the opposite party No.1 to submit the claim for release of subsidy amount from NABARD, stating that the NABARD might have extended the time and if the NABARD does not sanction the subsidy, he would forego the subsidy amount and pay the entire loan amount together with interest accrued thereon, to the opposite party bank. Further, in the letter dt: 08.05.2012 of the complainants it is clearly admitted that the complainant will assume full responsibility and pay the entire liability with interest and charges as applicable if the claim for subsidy is not settled due to delay in submission of the required documents in time. There upon immediately, the opposite party No.1 in its letter dt: 12.05.2012 sent proposals together with all documents submitted by the complainant on 08.05.2012 to the NABARD requesting to sanction and release the subsidy.

          In the letter No. NB.AP.RO/HYD/ICD/4434/TAM 391A  and  391 B/2012-13 dt: 16.07.2012 the Assistant General Manager, NABARD, Hyderabad informed the opposite party No.2 (Zonal Manager) that the above project is prima facie ineligible for the subsidy as the project work was completed beyond the prescribed time limit given by the Government of India. Thus, the complainant could not get subsidy amount of                            Rs. 8,00,000/- from NABARD. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties

         7. The complainant filed his evidence affidavit as PW-1 and got marked Ex:A1 to A7  for the opposite parties, one N.V.S. Siva Kumar filed evidence affidavit  as  RW-1 and got marked Ex:B1 to B12. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments.

        8. Now the points for consideration are:-

         (i)  Whether the complainant has completed the project work within prescribed period of 18 months or within the grace period of 6 (Six) months after 8 months is over i.e. within a total period of two years as prescribed?                 

        (ii) Whether the complainant is under obligation to submit the relevant documents along with an application to opposite parties claiming for subsidy amount of Rs.8,00,000/- or is it the duty of the opposite parties to get the subsidy amount from NABARD?

        (iii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties?                   

         (iv) Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs sought for?        

          (v)  To what Relief?

                     9.Point No (i) and (ii):-   To answer this point the learned counsel for the complainant argued that, though the complainant has completed the project work within the stipulated time and submitted application to opposite party No.1 with a request and forward the same to NABARD for release of the subsidy amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and though the complainant has repaid the loan amount, in a total sum of Rs.32,00,901/- within span of six (6) years from the date of commencement of the project, though he got 11 years period to repay the loan amount, the opposite parties instead of sending the claim application for subsidy to the NABARD  in time, delayed same and submitted the application in the year 2012 therefore, the complainant could not get the subsidy amount from NABARD.  The learned counsel for complainant further argued that the opposite parties insisting the complainant to pay the subsidy amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest otherwise his account will be put to CIBIL as NPA and see that the complainant will not get any loans in future. Therefore the complainant  prays the Forum to direct the opposite parties not to insist for the payment of subsidy amount of Rs.8,00,000/- which was lost by the bank due to their own negligence due such negligent act of the opposite parties the complainant sustained loss and also suffered mentally and prays the Forum to allow the complaint as prayed for.

                   10.  On perusal of the complaint it is observed that, nowhere the complainant stated that he commenced the project work at a particular date; that he has completed the project work within the stipulated time of the 18 months from the date of sanction of the loan on 21.02.2009 or on release of the first installment of loan amount by opposite party No.1 on 30.03.2009. If 18 months is calculated for completion of the construction of project work it will be over by 30.09.2010. In case that the construction is not completed on or before 30.9.2010, the complainant is expected to sought the extension of time to avail the grace period of six (6) months if the reasons for delay in not completing the construction of project work is justified then he will get the time for completion of the project work up to 30.03.2011 but, nowhere either in the complaint or in the evidence affidavit of PW-1 or in his written arguments, the complainant  stated that either he has completed the project work by 30.09.2010 or by 30.03.2011 even by availing grace period of six(6)  months. So, the complainant is silent about the completion of construction of project work within the stipulated time or even beyond it.

                     When the complainant himself is not disclosing as to when he has completed the project work within stipulated time as there was no any proof that the complainant has completed the construction of project work within the stipulated time he is not entitled for the subsidy. In complaint, the complainant is also silent under what’s scheme he has obtained the loan and claiming for subsidy. As per the guidelines of NABARD the promoters minimum contribution should be 20% of the project cost. Total project cost  including subsidy to be sanctioned by the financial institution. However promoters contribution for storage of infrastructure projects of State Government Agencies finance under Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF), Warehouses Infrastructures Fund(WIF) of NABARD  may be relaxed as per their respective guidelines.

           THE SUBSIDY PATTERN IS AS FOLLOWS:-

                       The sub scheme envisages “back ended” capital subsidy for investment in-eligible storage and marketing infrastructure projects as under. Capital cast of the project for the purpose of subsidy will be calculated on the project cost as appraised by financial institution or actual cost of eligible components as certified by Charted Accountant, which ever is lower subject to the subsidy ceiling as per MT as well as over all ceiling      given.

            SO FAR AS ADVANCE SUBSIDY:- is concerned NABARD will release advance subsidy to the Financial Institution (FI) for keeping the same  in Subsidy Reserve Fund Account of the concerned borrower to be adjusted finally against loan amount. This amount of 50% eligible subsidy would be released by NABARD to the Financing Institution on submission of a project profile-cum-claim form (Annexure-IX) complying to sub-Scheme guidelines.  

            SO FAR AS FINAL SUBSIDY:- is concerned the remaining 50% of the eligible subsidy amount will be released to the financial institution by NABARD after an inspection and recommendation by a Joint Inspection Committee (JIC) comprising of officers from NABARD or its representatives, financial institution and Directorate of Marketing and Infrastructure (DMI). NABARD Ho will also forward a compiled project wise list of the sanctioned and completed projects to the Head office of DMI.

           ADJUSTMENT OF SUBSIDY IN BORROWERS ACCOUNT:-

                        As the adjustment of subsidy is “back ended”, the full project cost including the subsidy amount, but excluding the margin money contribution from the promoter will be disbursed as loan by the Financing Institution. The repayment schedule will be drawn on the loan amount in such a way that the total subsidy amount is adjusted after the full loan component with interest is liquidated but not before five (5) years from the date of disbursement of first installment of loan.

                         In this regard, we have to state that, it is the duty of the financing bank that immediately after release of first installment of loan amount, has to submit the claim application, claiming 50% of the subsidy, to the NABARD this should be processed within 90 days from the date of disbursement of first installment of loan amount that was not done in this case.

                       11. The first installment in this case was released by opposite party No.1 on 30.03.2009. So within 90 days which comes to 30.06.2009 by which date opposite party No.1 is expected to send the claim application to NABARD. It is the duty of the bank/finance institution but not the complainant, the duty of the complainant is only to complete the project work within the stipulated time of 18 months or within two years if grace period is also necessary. When the NABARD released 50% of the subsidy amount to the financial institution that amount should be kept with the bank in Subsidy Reserve Fund Account opened in the name of promoter/borrower that was also not done by the opposite party No.1 in this case. Another duty on the complainant is that, when the project is nearing to completion the complainant has to inform the banker/Financial institution with a request to visit the project and make arrangements for inspection and issue completion and commissioning  certification. The complainant also did not take any such steps itself clearly shows that, the project work was not completed within the stipulated time of 18 months or 24 months as the case may be.

                     Under the above circumstances we are of the opinion that, it is the duty of the Financial institution to apply for the 50% for the subsidy claim within 90 days from the date of release of first installment and get the subsidy amount from NABARD and keep the same in Subsidy Reserve Fund Account, immediately after completion of the project work, if it was completed within stipulated time then make an inspection along with Branch Manager of Financial Institution, Officials of NABARD or their representatives and the officials of DMI  and submit the inspection report as well as completion and commissioning certificate and get the remaining 50% of the subsidy amount keep the same in Subsidy Reserve Fund Account, till the entire loan with interest is liquidated and then adjust the subsidy towards the remaining portion of the loan if, total cost of the project work is released or sanctioned. The procedure is not followed by the financial institution therefore, there are latches on part of the opposite parties/ financial institution, as well as the complainant also. Under the above circumstances we are of the opinion that, the complainant failed to complete the project work within the stipulated time and the Financial institution is also not followed the guidelines prescribed by the NABARD. Accordingly this point is answered.

                     12.Point No(iii):- To answer this point we have to state that, the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite as it has not followed the guidelines of the NABARD as amended up to 28.06.2016 in applying for the 50% of subsidy amount within the stipulated time 90 days from the date of release of first installment and also inspecting the project periodically and file the claim application for remaining 50% subsidy amount immediately after completion of the construction of project work and if it is done within the stipulated time. The complainant has failed to complete the construction of project work within the stipulated time therefore he has not entitled for subsidy amount. That  learned counsel for the opposite parties fairly conceded that opposite parties  are not insisting the complainant to pay the subsidy amount or the interest thereon. But  the opposite parties are demanding the complainant to pay only the loan amount of Rs.24,00,000/- sanctioned with interest thereon. As per the complaint, the complainant has paid Rs.28,03,000/- but as per the statement of account issued by the Financial institution /opposite party No.1 under Ex:A5, the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.32,00,901/-.The loan is obtained under the Scheme for Development/Strengthening of Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure Grading and Standardization admittedly. It is for the purpose of agricultural marketing. Therefore, the rate of interest is only 11.25% as mentioned in Ex:A2. The Financial Institution is not supposed to claim rate of interest @ 13.65% or so, under the guise of floating rate of interest. Therefore, the opposite parties would have calculated the interest  11.25% right from beginning over the loan amount of Rs.24,00,000/- and recover the same. If the amount already paid in a sum of Rs.32,00,901/- is sufficient the loan amount of complainant ought to have been closed  they cannot claim or insist the complainant to pay any more amount. The complainant admittedly paid the above said amount of Rs.32,00,901/- by 08.01.2014 itself. He has not kept the loan pending till the repayment time of 9 (Nine) years or 11 years.  It is apparent on record that the opposite parties have neither claimed the subsidy within prescribed period of 90 days from the date of release of first installment of loan amount and get the subsidy amount from NABARD.  The opposite parties are failed to open the Subsidy Reserve Fund Account in the name of complainant with Financial Institution (opposite party No.1) admittedly. And the opposite parties is also failed to sanction the total cost of the project  in a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- as per the norms.

                     Under the above circumstances we are of the opinion that, there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered. 

          13.Point (iv):- To answer this point  we have to state that,  since the learned counsel for the opposite parties fairly conceded that  they are not insisting the complainant to pay subsidy amount of Rs.8,00,000/- or interest  thereon, and that they are claiming only the loan amount of Rs.24,00,000/- with interest thereon. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the first relief against the opposite parties. The second relief is concerned, since the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and that they have caused mental agony to the complainant  and is entitled for compensation for deficiency in service and for costs of the litigation. Accordingly this point is answered.

          14.Point (v):-    In view of our discussion and holding on points 1 to 4 we are of the opinion that, the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 to 3, and that the complainant is entitled for compensation for deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and for causing mental agony  to the complainant, complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

         In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay compensation amount of RS.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the deficiency in service on their part and also for causing mental agony to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to calculate the interest @ 11.25% p.a. right from the date of releasing first installment of loan amount on 30.03.2009 till the date of complaint and adjust/deduct the amount already paid by the complainant. If any amount is found to be paid by the complainant it can be recovered by the opposite parties and if the amount of Rs.32,00,901/- already paid by the complainant is sufficient they cannot insist for any more amount from the complainant. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally are further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 05^th day of May, 2018.

        Sd/-                                                                                                                    Sd/-

 Lady Member                                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: N.R. Yahasunulla (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: N.V.S. Siva Kumar(Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Loan Applications of Complainants as per GUPTA Committee Recommendations, Kalluru Branch.
	Photo copy of Loan Sanction letter filed by the Complainant.  Dt: 21.02.2009.
	Letter addressed by Opposite Party(Format for claiming 50% Advance Subsidy-Annexure-I) to NABARD. Dt: 01.11.2011, 12.05.2012.
	Photo copy of Reply letter from NABARD to Opposite Party and also to Complainant (Ref.No. NB.AP.RO/HYD/ICD/   / TAM 391A & 391B/2012-13). Dt: 31.08.2012.
	True copy of Statement of Account for the A/c. No. 829468252.
	Office copy of Legal Notice along with Postal Receipts and 3 Acknowledgements filed by the complainant. Dt: 31.03.2016.
	Reply Notice of the Opposite Party. Dt: 21.04.2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Loan application of the Complainant submitted to the Opposite Party No.1 to sanction loan of Rs.24 lakhs in Original.
	Sanction Ticket Ref.No.CO/BR/ABD/ST No.28/2008-09, Dt: 21.02.2009 of the Deputy General Manager/Circle Head, Indian Bank, then at Chittoor sanctioning loan to the complainant in Original.
	Sanction Ticket Dt: 14.03.2009 of the Opposite Party No.1 sanctioning loan to the Complainant in Original.
	Demand Promissory Note Dt: 14.03.2009 for the loan amount of Rs.24 lakhs executed by the complainant in favour of the Indian bank, Kallur Branch in Original.
	Letter Ref.No.CO/ABS/468/2008-09 Dt: 26.03.2009 of the Deputy General Manager, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Chittoor addressed to the Opposite Party No.1 permitting the Opposite Party No.1 to release the loan amount as per the sanction limits to the complainant filed by the Opposite Party No.1.
	Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds executed by the complainant in favour of the Indian Bank, Kallur in original. Dt:18.07.2009.
	True copy of Statement of Account relating to the loan of the complainant filed by Opposite Party No.1. Dt:28.11.2016.
	Completion and commission certificate signed by the complainant (Promoter), bank engineer and the opposite party No.1 certifying that the project work was completed in all aspects on 16.02.2012 and commissioned on 01.05.2012 filed by the opposite party no.1 in original.
	Letter dt: 08.05.2012 of the complainant addressed to the opposite party no.1 stating that he has submitted the required papers for claiming the subsidy from NABARD recently to the Indian Bank, Kallur and he undertook that he would assume full responsibility and pay the entire liability with interest and charges as applicable, if claim for subsidy is not settled due to delay in submission of the required details, filed by the opposite party no.1.
	True copy of Letter Dt: 12.05.2012 of the opposite party no.1 addressed to the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Chittoor enclosing 3 sets of documents requesting to claim the subsidy amount from NABARD, filed by opposite party no.1 in original.
	True copy of Letter dt: 19.07.2012 of the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Chittoor addressed to the opposite party no.1 enclosing the letter Dt: 16.07.2012 of the Asst. General Manager, NABARD, Hyderabad expressing their inability to provide subsidy to the complainant and the other party by name Sri. N.R. Hamanulla, due to delay in submission of subsidy claims in the prescribed time limit set by the GOI. But in the said letter the names of the promoters (Complainants) were inadvertently, spelt as ‘M/s. NR Yashanulla’ instead of the actual names (1) NR Yahasanulla and (2) NR Hamanulla,  filed by opposite party no.1.
	True copy of Letter dt: 31.08.2012 of the Asst. General Manager, NABARD, Hyderabad addressed to the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Chittoor under a copy to the opposite party no.1 expressing their inability to provide subsidy to the complainant and the other party by name Sri Yahasanulla, due to delay in submission of subsidy claims in the prescribed time limit set by the GOI, filed by the opposite party no.1.

 

 

             Sd/-

                                                                                                             President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant. 

                  2) The Opposite parties 1 to 3.