Jayanti Nayak, W/o:- SadanandaNayak,
At/Po:-Khaparapada, Via:- Arnapal,
P.S:- Dhusuri, Dist- Bhadrak .. . . . . Complainant.
Vrs.
- The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Asurali Branch,
At/Po:-Asurali, P.S:- Dhusuri, Dist:-Bhadrak.
- The Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Balasore,
At:- Police Line Chhak, O.T. Road, Po/Dist:- Balasore.
. . . . Opp. Parties.
Counsel for Complainant : Sri B.K. Mohanty, Advocate & Other.
Counsel for the Opp. Parties. : Sri Biswanath Sahoo, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 27.12.2022.
Date of order : 31.01.2023.
J U D G M E N T.
SHRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Brief facts disclosed in the case is that, the complainant is an educated woman having no source of income, requested the Sr. Manager of UCO Bank,Asurali Branch regarding sanction of loan proposal as she is an account holder of the Bank. Basing upon the complainant’s request for self-employment & for earning of her livelihood, her proposal was sanctioned under PMEGP Scheme by the competent authority i.e. O.P. No.2. On 30.03.2013 the loan was sanctioned under Prime Minister Employee Guarantee Scheme (PMEGP) & loan was to cover under CGTMSE which is a Govt. of India backed credit linked subsidy scheme. Under this scheme beneficiary can get a subsidy amounting to 35% of the project cost from Govt. which was reflected on the sanction of loan proposal manual & interest thereto was 11.20%. Complainant availed a loan of Rs.8,32,200/- under PMEGP for preparation of Thermocool (Sola) paper &sal leaf utensil manufacturing unit in order to earn her livelihood. Out of the sanctioned amount the O.Ps disbursed Rs.6,42,200/- as a term loan towards machinery & equipment’s & the rest amount given under cash credit as Rs.1,90,000/- .Complainant executed the project & basing upon the guidelines the repayment has been made to O.P.No.1. Complainant also applied for subsidy to the O.P.No.1. O.P. No.1 said to the complainant that the calculation for repayment will be made after subsidy is 35% x 8,32,200 = Rs.2,91,270/- after subsidy is Rs.8,32,200.00-Rs.2,91,270.00 = Rs.5,40,930/- is the repayable amount along with interest of 11.20%. Complainant paid the interest along with principal .The account statement expresses in TL-PMEGP bearing Account No. 12610610006078 wherein total credited amount is Rs. 8,06,155.76 & the debit amount is Rs.4,39,845/-. Besides in the CC Loan Account No. 12610510003787 in where the last credit & debit transaction in the account of statement expresses total credit Rs.4,77,819/-, whereas total debit Rs.4,78,748/- & closing balance Rs.929/-. As such the complainant is no more a defaulter or any amount in outstanding on the complainant. But on 13.02.2019, O.P. No.1 being the authorized officer pasted a possession notice at the production unit of complainant under the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Asset & Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 not giving any prior notice, as Rs.9,36,780/- as outstanding against the complainant. The act & express action of O.P. No.1 is deficiency of service & amounting mental agony for which the complainant has a great loss in her production unit.it is out & out illegal & contrary to law, as though the loan amount needs no equitable mortgage under the above provision of law, the O.Ps made it cunningly to harass the complainant, besides on 13.02.2019 the authorized officer of O.P. No.1 pasted a caution notice as possession has been taken by O.Ps. underSarfaesi Act, 2002. Complainant preserves all the deposits slips amounting to Rs.3,40,000/- in term loan amount & Rs.2,35,500/- in C.C. account in total Rs.5,75,500/- excluding the other deposits. Complainant has no outstanding, rather it is a planned fraud to exploit the innocent lady who earns her livelihood from the said production unit. For which the complainant has been rotting in mental agony and the high handed action of O.P.No.1 and the unethical act of O.P.No.1, the complainant has to shut down her production unit. It is the brinkmanship & deficiency of service on the part of O.P. No.1. Besides the above action, O.P. No.1 has taken all the academic certificates, land records & training certificates of complainant & the complainant has been also been burdened with the action of O.Ps as influencing the CIBIL action, so that the complainant is denominated as a universal defaulter. All the above actions of O.Ps are illegal & contrary to law. In time of Covid-19 pandemic period, when the production unit of the complainant was in shut down state, the O.Ps have taken several loan repayments, ignoring the Central Govt. declaration of moratorium period. All these illegal and unethical acts of these O.Ps have left a sorrowful scar in mind of complainant. When the govt. promotes the above MSME program for self-employment of permanent livelihood, the O.Ps thwarted the will & spirit of the government & exploited the complainant. All the loan has been cleared on. O.P. No.1 did not return certificates to the complainant and land record also. Hence she prays to direct the O.Ps to refund the surplus amount with interest to her along with cost & compensation.
O.Ps resisted the claim on certain points & contested the case. O.Ps did not resist the averments from Para-1 to 6 and denies the contents of Para7 to 16. The contentions raised by these O.P.s are that according to sanction & agreement executed by the complainant, loan account No. 12610610006078 & 12610510003787 were opened in her name & the same is a system generated statement of the loan account. So far as the established procedure of the bank, the account has to be declared as NPA in case of non- operation of the loan account & in that event the bank stops calculation of interest in the loan account till its regularization upon payment of non-calculated interest part with balance outstanding. So far as the statement of account in the loan, the borrower was not in regular payment of loan amount for which the accounts became NPA on dt. 30.09.2015 & the amount reflected after the period as deposits could not satisfy the loan account as regular & the figure as reflected therein are non-calculated of the interest part in account No. 12610610006078 is till 31.01.2018 & account No. 12610510003787 is till 31.08.2020. The system has not calculated the interest & penal interest part of the loan account as the accounts are running NPA & the figure as seen from the account statement are not the final calculated figure & as such she has to pay the amount with non-calculated interest till the date of final adjustment of the loan accounts. So far as the terms of the repayment period has been over, there is no option by the bank to operate the NPA loan account furthermore & as such the borrower has to pay the amount in full. Since the borrower has not deposited any amount to be treated as surplus & she has option to settle the amount as per guidelines scheme of the bank otherwise the bank has the power to take legal action against her for recovery of the amount by filing recovery suit. The complainant has unnecessarily dragged this O.P. with a malafide intention, & she is not entitled to get any relief. The specific allegation in the complaint petition is no way treated as a deficiency in service for which the case has no merit and demands the complaint to be dismissed with cost.
After hearing the rival contentions and examining the undisputed contentions and the material evidences available in record these following issues cropped up to be answered before arriving into the rightful conclusion of the dispute:
Issue No.1
Whether the project of the complainant was covered under CGTMSE scheme which requires no equitable mortgage?
Issue No.2
Whether complainant is entitled repay only Rs.5,40,930/- after deducting the 35% subsidy from the total loan amount of Rs.8,32,200/-?
Issue No.3
If so, whether the complainant has repaid the loan in excess of Rs.5,40,930/- ?
Issue No.4
Whether O.Ps undertook the course of SURFAESI ACT, 2002 against the complainant and affixed possession notice at the production unit of complainant ?
Issue No.5
Whether these O.Ps are deficient in providing service?
Issue No.6
If so, then what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
It is the admitted position of both parties that the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.8,32,200/- which has been sanctioned under PMEGP scheme and that the said loan was covered under CGTMSE in which no equitable mortgage is required and that the beneficiary gets a subsidy of 35% of the project cost. Further, the complainant has proved the same through documents like O.P’s letter dtd. 30/03/2013 regarding sanction of loan proposal wherein it has been very clearly stated at point-4 that the loan is covered under CGTMSE and at point-15 subsidy to be 35% of the project cost. Further, in the terms and condition heading of the said sanction letter at point-20 it has been stated that the Bank Branch must follow the norms of CGTMSE during entire tenure of loan. As per the circular of KVIC dtd. 01/06/2022 and under its PMEGP guideline at point-3.2, the complainant being a woman is entitled to 35% of subsidy as her production unit is in rural area. The same guideline again says at its point no.-11.13 that no collateral security will be insisted upon by the bank in line with the guidelines of RBI for projects involving loan up to Rs. 10 Lakhs. So, now it is crystal clear that the complainant was not required to furnish any security against the loan and she has to repay the loan less the 35% subsidy amount. So, the complainant has to repay only Rs.5,40,930/- after deducting the 35% subsidy from the total loan amount of Rs.8,32,200/- along with applicable rate of interest. Issue No. 1 & 2 are thus answered in favour of the complainant.
As it appears from the account statement issued by the O.P. Bank, in TL-PMEGP bearing A/c No.- 12610610006078 wherein total amount credited is Rs. 8,06,155.76 whereas the debit amount is Rs. 4,39,845/- and in CC Loan A/c No.- 12610510003787 total credit is Rs4,77,819/- and the total debit is Rs. 4,78,748/- and closing balance is Rs. 929/-. On the other hand, the explanation of the O.P. Bank is that as the loan account became NPA on 30/09/2015, the account statement generated by their computerized system of the bank does not reflect final figure of the interest and penal interest of the loan account. The complainant has not manufactured the account statements. She has only obtained the same from the O.P. Bank may be after paying some fees. So, the OP Bank cannot take the plea that their system generated account statement which they issued to the complainant is incorrect! The complainant files the deposit slips which shows she has made payment of Rs. 5,75,500/- in total against term loan A/c No.- 12610610006078 & CC Loan A/c No.- 12610510003787. These O.Ps also do not specifically deny to this averment anywhere. The loan warrants a repayment with 11.2% of interest. So, this Commission does not think that the complainant has repaid the loan in excess of her dues. Thus Issue No.3 is answered against the complainant.
The O.Ps states that they can invoke the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as the movable hypothecated stocks are the security part of the loan account and they can enforce the security under the Act. They don’t deny of affixing possession notice by their staff at the production unit and so far as CIBIL defaulter status, they say that its autonomous process governed under RBI guideline under which they have no role to play. But in contrary to the guidelines of the scheme they have taken security of landed property, academic certificates, training certificate etc. which value much beyond the loan. When the loan is under the security of CGTMSE, Govt. of India, the O.P. Bank should not have resorted to initiated proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The O.Ps have also filed one M.S. No.-240/2017-III pending adjudication before Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak pending adjudication and further initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in 2018 looks like a ploy by the O.P. Bank to harass the complainant. Withholding property documents, academic certificates and training Certificate etc. are acts to enhance the sufferings of the complainant. There is no doubt in the mind of this Commission that these O.Ps have indulged in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service to put the complainant in mental agony and harassment. Thus Issue No.-4 & 5 are answered in favour of the Complainant.
Lastly, as the complainant being a lady of rural area is entitled to 35% subsidy of the loan amount which she has already repaid as per the account statement of the O.P. Bank along with agreed rate of interests. As Government of India stands as security against such PMEGP loan, O.P. Bank in due course shall get the subsidy through CGTMSE. But the complainant is entitled to get back her original land records, academic certificates & training certificates along with “No Dues Certificate”. The complainant has suffered harassment, humiliation for the deliberate acts of the O.Ps which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for which she needs to be compensated. Accordingly, Issue No.6 is answered in favour of the complainant.
O R D E R.
Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed and O.Ps are directed to return original land records, academic certificates & training certificates of the complainant along with “No Dues Certificate” against the said loan and pay another Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) towards cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which additional 6% interest per annum shall be charged on the awarded amount from the date of order till the date of payment.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 31st day of January 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
