DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC-   52   of   2017

 

Smt. Sukumari Paul,

D/O- Lt. Kedan Chand Paul,

Old Agartala, P.S. Boudhjungnagar,

West Tripura. …...Complainant.

 

         VERSUS

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Agartala Branch,

RMS Chowmuhani,

Agartala, Tripura West.

 

2. The Deputy Director/Assistant Director(In-charge),

Khadi & Village Industry Commission(KVIC), 

A.A. Road, Math Chowmuhani,

Kamar Pukur Par,

P.O. Agartala College,

P.S. East Agartala,

Agartala, Tripura West.  ...........Opposite parties.

   

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Anjan Kanti Paul,

 Advocate.

 

For the O.P. No.1 : Sri Amitabha Roy Barman,

 Advocate.

 

For the O.P. No.2 : Sri A. Lodh,

 Advocate.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  24.07.2017.

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by Sukumari Paul U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that she applied for loan under KVIC's PMEGP to start a Rice Mill. Rs.5 lacs was sanctioned out of which 5% is to given by the complainant and 95%  shall pay by the bank. Rs.4,75,000/- is to be paid by the bank. F.D. certificate was submitted. The bank paid Rs.1,50,000/- loan amount but refused to pay Rs.3,25,000/-. Complainant then filed the consumer's case and prayed for disposal earlier vide No- CC- 55 of 2015. That case was decided earlier. Petitioner in this case stated that Khadi and Village Industry Commission( in short KVIC) should pay subsidy amount of Rs.1,42,500/-. So direction should be given to KVIC for releasing the subsidy. The prayer in this case is to give direction to KVIC to release the subsidy.

2. O.P., Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank filed W/S denying the claim. It is stated that they never received any subsidy from the KVIC or Government against scheme in connection with the loan. So, there is no question of deficiency of service.

3. O.P. No.2 , Deputy Director, KVIC filed W.S later on. It is stated that the Gramin Bank by its letter dated 03.09.2008 made  some queries and as per recommendation of the Gramin Bank, O.P. No.2 released the required amount within the ambit of their policy. Complainant also had received the same but why complainant did not start the business not known to the O.P. No.2.  Margin money is generally provided after setting up of the unit.  But as she did not instal or set up Unit she is not entitled to get the margin money. The Government of India never prescribed or entertained any scheme beyond stipulated period. It is stated that against all sanctioned loan for particular period advance is deposited through nodal bank, Dhaleswar Branch of Tripura Gramin Bank. 

4. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination.

  (I) Whether any subsidy against the sanctioned loan was released by the O.P. No.2, Khadi & Village Industry Commission?

  (II) Whether there was deficiency of service by O.P. No.1 and 2 ?

5. Petitioner side produced Xerox copy of power of attorney, xerox copy of written objection, xerox copy of deposition of the witness in the case No. CC-55 of 2015. Some correspondences also produced along with the statement on affidavit of Keshab Chandra Pal, original notice and another correspondence also produced on the basis of all these we shall decide the prayer.  

Finding & decision:-

6. We have gone through all the documents and the evidence as produced by the parties. From the correspondence and documents it is found that the margin money released in the year 2007-2008. KVIC stated that their part in respect of loan already satisfied in the year 2009. The contention in this case is that the amount released to Gramin bank but not paid to the petitioner. From the payment receipt it is found that Rs.1,50,000/- was received by Sukumari Paul. Rest amount was not released as because she failed to set up the Unit. In this regard judgment already passed by this District Forum on 07.05.16. The matter of subsidy from KVIC remained pending as complaint by the petitioner. It relates to subsidy of 2007-2008. According to KVIC the subsidy amount already released. There is no question of deficiency of service by KVIC as against the project subsidy already released by the KVIC and according to KVIC the amount already received by petitioner Sukumari Paul. There is no single piece of evidence to support that Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin, RMS Chowmuhani received the amount from the KVIC. In case it was received in the year 2009 then the question could have been raised about deficiency of service earlier. KVIC itself stated that amount was not paid to the Gramin Bank, RMS Chowmuhani but paid to the nodal bank, Dhaleswar Branch in the year 2009. Such matter also barred by limitation as after lapse of 8 years subject matter is raised about the deficiency of service. We found no deficiency of service by Branch Manager or Deputy Director KVIC. There is no merit in this case. Therefore, the petitioner is dismissed. No cost. 

 

   Announced.