The above referred cases have been filed by the complainants against the same Ops.  It is seen that the facts of the cases are similar in nature.  Hence the cases have been clubbed together and heard from the parties for a common order.

1. The brief history of the cases of the complainants is that, they opened SB A/c with IOB, Laxmipur – OP.1 and as per the advice of OMFED Union Supervisor, Kakirigumma, they availed loan from OP.1 for Dairy Farm under Dairy Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (DEDS) sponsored by Govt. of India and run dairy farm which loan bears subsidy.The loan details of the complainants are given below :

It is submitted that the bank has recovered the loan dues from the complainants but did not sanction any subsidy in their favour in spite of repeated requests.  Due to non supply of statement of accounts and loan agreement papers, the complainants remained in dark about the loan paid and adjusted towards subsidy.  The complainants further submitted that although they have repaid the loan dues, the OP.1 has been informing them that the loan dues are rising day by day.  The complainants later on have added NABARD, who is the subsidy releasing authority and the OMFED as party to these cases.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, they have filed these cases praying the Forum to direct the Ops to grant subsidy in their favour so that the loan can be closed and credit the rest amount in their accounts by the bank and issue No Due Certificate in their favour besides to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and costs to each of the complainants.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed same and similar counter in all the above cases admitting that the complainants have availed loan from the Bank for setting up of dairy units by executing agreement and in the said agreement the OP had never agreed to pay any subsidy.  Regarding allegation of non supply of loan agreement paper and sanction order, the OP contended that the complainants are to obtain the copies of documents at their own costs with specific request in writing to the bank.  The OP also contended that the present cases are bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e. OMFED.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.

3.                     The Ops 2 & 3 also filed same and similar counter in all the above case in joint denying the allegations of the complainants and contended that there is no cause of action against them.  The complainants have added them as party to the cases considering them as subsidy releasing agency.  The Ops contended that the subsidy given by the Government to the complainants is a free financial assistance for which no consideration is paid and as there is no transaction took place that cannot be treated as “service” under C. P. Act.  The Ops further contended that they have not received any subsidy application of the complainants from the OP.1 and the NABARD is only a passing through agency and subsidy is being sanctioned by Govt. of India.  In absence of any intimation to Ops 2 & 3 by the OP.1, they cannot release the subsidy directly to the complainants.  Thus denying the complainants as their consumer and denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the cases.

4.                     The OP.4 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainants and contended that as there is no monetary consideration taken place between the complainants and the OP.4, the present cases are hit u/s.2 (1) (d) of CPA.  It is contended that the Supervisor of the OP.4 only informed the complainants about various schemes of Government for their social and economic development but the OP had no role regarding any financial transaction between the complainants and other Ops.  It is also contended that the OP.4 has no knowledge about sanction of any loan for subsidy in favour of the complainants and the OP-4 was no way connected with the matter regarding no release of subsidy.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.4 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.

4.                     The complainants as well as Ops have filed certain documents.  The Ops filed affidavits in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In the above cases, the complainants have availed agricultural loan from OP.1 for setting up of dairy farms.  Whereas the quantum of loan was Rs.84, 000/- sanctioned against each complainant, they have received less amount from the OP.1 as averred by them and also found to be true from the book of accounts supplied by the OP.1.  The common case of the complainants         is that they have not availed subsidy under the scheme in spite of repeated approach to the Bank.  Further their case is that in spite of repayment of loan dues, the bank is demanding further loan dues from time to time.  The OP.1 stated in his counter that the bank had never agreed to pay any subsidy to the complainants and the Ops 2 & 3 stated in their counter that the subsidy offered to be paid is not ‘service’ as defined under CPA and hence the complainant are not their consumers.

6.                     From the above rival contentions of the parties, the following issues emerge importance for consideration for just decision of the cases.  (1) Whether the complainants are entitled for subsidy under the loan agreement, (2), whether subsidy offered to be paid is a ‘service’ as defined under CPA, (3) whether Ops or any of the Ops have committed deficiency in service by not releasing the subsidy and (4) if so, as to what relief?

7.                     While deciding issue No.1 it is seen that as per agreement signed between the complainants and the bank loan of Rs.84, 000/- each has been sanctioned in favour of the complainants as per estimate made by the VAS, Kakirigumma and the loan amount has been paid to the complainants in different phases but it is seen that the full loan amount has not been paid to them.  The details of loan sanctioned by the OP and paid to the complainants are available at para-1 of this judgment.  The OP.1 also has not stated in his counter that full amount of loan has been given to the complainants.  The complainants have filed a copy of Circular No.186/TSD-03/2010 dt.21.09.2010 of Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, GOI which shows at para-10 that the bank is to sanction and release the first installment and then apply to NABARD for sanction and release of eligible subsidy.  This circular has been issued to all scheduled commercial banks including the OP No.1.  An operational guideline on DEDS has been annexed with that circular in which pattern of assistance are given which clearly shows that the maximum permissible subsidy is Rs.21, 000/- for a two animal unit.  In the present cases, the complainants have taken loan for 2 animal units and accordingly Rs.84, 000/- were sanctioned in their favour by OP.1, the subsidy amount as per operational guidelines comes to Rs.21, 000/- by taking 25% of the loan amount into consideration.  Accordingly the OP.1 has also claimed the capital subsidy before the Ops 2 & 3 @ Rs.21, 000/- in case of the complainants through proper format, the copy of which is available on record.  From the above discussions and information it became crystal clear that the complainants are eligible for subsidy under DEDS and the OP.1 was to claim subsidy on behalf of the complainants before the Ops 2 & 3.  Accordingly this issue goes in favour of the complainants.

8.                     While deciding Issue No.2 it is seen that the Ops 2 & 3 stated that the subsidy cannot be considered as a ‘service’ under CPA and relied a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Chaudhary Ashok Yadav –Vrs- The Rewari Central Cooperative Bank and others (R.P. No.4894/2012) on 08.02.2013.  On the other hand the A/R for the complainants cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in CEO NMPB, Govt. of India –Vrs- Hardam Singh (R. P. No.3165 of 2015) dt.13.1.2016.  Perused both the decisions of the Hon’ble Commission and found that the decision relied by the Ops is of the year 2013 whereas the decision relied by the A/R for the complainant is of the year 2016.  As per settled principle of law, the latest order always stands good.  In the decision cited by the A/R for the complainant, there were concurrent findings of facts by both Fora and State Commission for release of subsidy amount in favour of the borrower.  The Hon’ble National Commission also without exercising its limited revisional jurisdiction affirmed the concurrent findings of both the Foras below and dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Revision Petitioner.  Hence in view of order of the Hon’ble Commission in the year 2016 allowing loan subsidy case, we profitably hold that the subsidy offered to be paid is a service and the case of the complainants is maintainable under CPA.  Accordingly, this issue also goes in favour of the complainants.

9.                     The Issue No.3 is, whether any OP(s) committed fault regarding release of subsidy in favour of the complainants.  The Operational Guidelines at para-11 clearly shows about release of subsidy by the NABARD.  As per rule, the capital subsidy will be adjusted against last few installments of payment of bank loan.  The bank is to claim subsidy within the time frame from the NABARD for the benefit of the beneficiaries.  In these cases, the OP.1 after releasing loan in favour of the complainants has not claimed the subsidy but realized the loan dues from the complainants.  Even if, it is seen that some of the complainants have repaid the loan dues in full.  It was the duty of the OP.1 to claim subsidy for adjustment against few last installments but it did not do so.

9.                     The Ops 2 & 3 submitted that they cannot release the subsidy directly to the complainants and they have received the subsidy claim application on 03.03.2016 from OP.1 in respect of 5 complainants (except Sri P. Ch. Nayak & Sri S. K. Nayak) in the present dispute.  The Ops further stated that as the claim applications were received after 4 years from the date of disbursement of 1^st installment of loan on 27.03.2012 under DEDS, the same could not be considered for release of subsidy by NABARD as it was time barred.  However, the Ops have sought intervention of their Head Office in this matter.

10.                   It is seen from the record that Sri P. Ch. Nayak (CC No.68/15) has cleared his loan dues.  His statement of accounts showing zero balance can be termed as No Due Certificate.  Further the OP.1 has issued NDC in favour of Sri S. K. Nayak (CC No.71/15).  The OP.1 could not able to show as to how much loan amount is pending against other 5 complainants for whom it has sent subsidy claim applications.

11.                   Basing upon the evidence adduced and materials on record we come to the conclusion that the OP.1 as per Operational Guidelines of DEDS has not forwarded the claim applications in respect of the complainants in time for which they have been debarred to get the subsidy.  The OP.1 after filing of these cases woke up and hurriedly sent the subsidy claims in respect of 5 beneficiaries barring other two members.  This inaction of OP.1 in our opinion amounts to serious deficiency in service for which the complainants sustained pecuniary loss.  As per the scheme guidelines each complainant is entitled for Rs.21, 000/- towards subsidy and the OP.1 is the initiating authority for such subsidy to be received by the complainants.  Since the OP.1 has late submitted the subsidy claim applications, the Ops 2 & 3 termed the claims as time barred.  Hence the OP.1 is to be directed to pay the subsidy amount @ Rs.21, 000/- to each complainant including the complainants in C.C. No.68 & 71 of 2015.  The said subsidy amount may also be adjusted against the pending loan dues of the complainants.  The amount so paid towards subsidy by the bank can be recovered from the erring officer of the bank later on.  If the subsidy is released from NABARD, the said amount will be the property of bank/erring officer from whom it were recovered.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant as prayed for but the complainants are certainly entitled for some costs due to this litigation and we feel, a sum of Rs.2000/- towards costs in favour of the complainants will meet the ends of justice.

12.                   In the above cases, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of Ops 2 & 3.  Similarly, the OP.4 through its Supervisor had introduced the Govt. sponsored scheme in the rural areas and the complainants being attracted availed the scheme for their social and economic upliftment.   The OP.4 has also no involvement in any financial transaction between the OP.1 and the complainants.  Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on its part.

13.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.1 is directed to (1) pay Rs.21, 000/- towards subsidy and Rs.2000/- towards cost to each complainant. (2) The above amount will be adjusted against the loan dues if due to be paid and if not due in any case, the amount will be deposited in their SB accounts. (3) After payment to the complainants, the OP.1 is at liberty to recover the said amount from the erring officer of the bank and if the subsidy is released by NABARD, the amount will go to the bank/erring officer whoever has paid it.  (4)  To issue NDC in cases of recovery of full loan dues.  (5) To release the margin money if any in favour of suitable complainants.   The above directions are to be complied by OP.1 within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the subsidy amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of these cases i.e.14.07.2015.

(to dict.)