Orissa

Rayagada

CC/44/2018

Sri Radha Prasad Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

16 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.  44 /  2018.                                            Date.   16     .     3  . 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                          Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Radha Prasad Sahu, S/O: Late Ghanashyam Sahu, At:Gundicha Nagar, Back side of  Vibekananada English Medium School,  Po:Muniguda, Dist:Rayagada. (Odisha)                                                                  …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Branch   Manager, Utkal Gramya Bank, Muniguda,  Dist: Rayagada.

2.Sri S.K.Bansal, Chief Manager, Department of Refinance NABARD, BKC Bandra(East) Mumbai- 400 051.                                    ..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri  C.M.Patnaik & Sri P.K.Padhy, Advocates, Muniguda.

For the O.P No.1:- Sri  K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P.No.2:- Self.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non receipt of  subsidy amount  @ 40% of the invoice a sum of Rs.16,200/- towards availing loan for purchase of  Solar  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief facts of the case are  summarized here under.

That  the complainant had availed loan from the O.P. No.1 (Bank) on Dt.11.3.2015 for purchase of Solite Solar DC  & AC Inverter systems unit for consideration amount a sum of Rs.40,500/- bearing loan account 84019205572. That as per scheme the complainant has cleared the installments  i.e. 60% of the total loan Rs.;26,600/- and cleared the installments. Further the complainant is entitled 40% subsidy amount  i.e. Rs.16,200/- from the O.P No.2 through the O.P. No.1 (bank). But till date the complainant has not received the  subsidy amount from the  O.Ps. Hence this C.C. case. The  complainant  prays the forum direct the O.Ps to credit  a sum of Rs.16,200/- to the S.B. account No. 84012026431 of the complainant and allow such other relief as the  forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps  put in their appearance and filed written version through their learned counsel  in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P. Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the O.Ps   and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                        FINDINGS.

Undisputedly   solar home light  scheme was sanctioned  by NABARD and there was  40% subsidy in the said  scheme which was tagged to  UGB,Muniguda(O.P. No.1).  Undisputedly  the O.P. No.2  NABARD  was extended subsidy  upto 31^st. March, 2015.  There is no dispute  the complainant had availed loan from the O.P. No.1 (Bank) on Dt.11.3.2015 for purchase of Solite Solar DC  & AC Inverter systems unit for consideration amount a sum of Rs.40,500/- bearing loan account 84019205572 where in  the complainant is entitled 40% subsidy amount  i.e. Rs.16,200/- from the O.P No.2 through the O.P. No.1 (bank).

The main grievance of the complainant is that till date the complainant has not received the  subsidy amount from the  O.Ps. Hence this C.C. case.

It further appears that prior to filing   of complaint, the complainant had issued letter  Dt. 16.9.2015 to the O.P. No.1 and it was duly served on the O.P.(Copies of the letter   is in the file which is marked as Annexure-1 )   but they failed to furnish reply to the said   letter.  Hence it appears that the O.Ps  have been negligent and callous regarding the complaint of the complainant. So the complainant filed this C.C. case before the forum.

The O.P.No.2  in their written version contended that subsidy can not be considered a ‘service’ under C.P. Act, 1986 is also supported by the order passed by the Hon’ble  National  Commission in the case of  Choudhary  Yadav Vrs. The Rewari Central Co-operative  Bank & others (Review  petition  No. 4894  of 2012 decided  on Dt. 8.2.2013, where in it was held that  “The principal question is that of the grant of subsidy. The order passed by  the  Learned State   Commission is supported   by authorities,  which clearly go to show that the subsidy offered to be paid is not  ‘service’   as defined  in Consumer Protection Act,  1986. Consequently , the complainant  is not a ‘consumer’  “.

Further the  O.P. No.2  in their written  version contended that  there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering  O.P. The bank has sanctioned  the loan to those projects, which comply with the guidelines  for administering  subsidy under  Solar Lighting Systems and small capacity Pv systems under  Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission, issued by the Ministry of  New  And Renewable Energy, GOI  for eligible subsidy. Thus, in this case, contractual  relation of banker and customer is entered into between the financing bank   (O.P. No.1)  and the complainant.  The  O.P. No.2 has neither sanctioned any loan to the complainant nor entered into any contract with the complainant. The  role of the  O.P No.2  is GOI’s subsidy schemes is merely that of an intermediary, in its present role, NABARD acts as a pass through  agency on behalf of the GOI for disbursing subsidy.  This  essentially entails that NABARD can only  release subsidy based on the guidelines issued and availability  of funds allocated  by GOI of NABARD from time to time. As per the scheme and guidelines, the entrepreneurs  shall apply to their banks for sanction of the project. The banks shall appraise the project as per their norms and if found eligible, sanction the total outlay excluding the margin, as the bank loan. The  loan amount is then  disbursed in suitable installments depending   on the progress of the unit. After the disbursement of first installment of the loan, the banks shall apply to the  concerned Regional  office of NABARD for sanction and release of total eligible  subsidy. The O.P. No.2 had not received complainant’s subsidy claim from the O.P. No.1(Bank) till date for the loan sanctioned  by the financing bank Dtd.11.3.2015. It was also observed  that invoice cum bill date of 10.3.205 which is prior to the date of sanction of loan i.e. Dt. 11.3.2015  which is also nor proper. In absence of receipt of claim application of the complainant by NABARD from the financing bank,  NABARD has no liability  towards the complainant. The O.P. No.2 is merely a pass through agency which the subsidy of GOI is remitted to the eligible  borrower  through  his  banker.   As subsidy is released on first come and first serve basis subject to availability of funds and compliance with scheme guidelines, submission of a complete subsidy claim containing relevant details within the due date is crucial for receiving subsidy.  The O.P. No.2 can only process those subsidy claims  which comply with  scheme  guidelines,  administrative approvals and advice for each financial year which is issued by the GOI.

For better appreciation this forum relied citations which are mentioned here.

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case 2004 page No.27 where in  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  the redressal mechanism  established  under the Act is “not supposed to supplant but to supplement the existing judicial system”. It is well settled  principle of law that the statutory authority   should act under the provisions of the relevant statue and if they do  not   act accordingly, the Consumer Forum  have the jurisdiction because  not acting under the provisions of the statute/Act it amounts to deficiency   of service.

Further    It is held and reported in CPR- 2009 (2) Page No. 42  where in  the Himachal Pradesh  State Commission  observed “ we may mention here that it is by now well settled that the C.P. Act, 1986 is a welfare  legislation  meant to give  speedy  in expensive and timely justice to the parties. Similarly it is also well known  that where  two views are possible, one favourable to the consumer needs to be followed.”

Again  It is held and reported in SCC 1994 page No. 243   in  the case of  Lucknow Development Authority Vrs. M.K.Gupta were  where in the Hon’ble  Supreme Court observed  “The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling   the consumer  to participate directly  in the market economy. It attempts to remove the  helplessness  if a consumer  which he faces  against powerful business, described as,  ‘a  network of rackets’ or a society in which, ‘ producers have secured  power ‘ to ‘rob the rest’ and the might  of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction   where papers do not move from one desk  to another as a matter of duty and responsibility, but for extraneous consideration, leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked”.  

Further  It is observed in this  case   due to financial crunch the  complainant has no other  option then to approach this forum for redressal of their grievance.

            That for failure to act properly  by the O.Ps. the complainant should not be deprived of his legitmate entitlement, it is to  be ensured   that the benefit to which the consumer   is eligible after due date are entitled enjoy it and it should not became a distant dream.

            Taking into consideration, the facts & circumstances of the case just mentioned above,  this forum is of the view that the complainant is entitled to get 40% subsidy as per scheme. But  due to misunderstanding between the O.P. No.1(Bank)  and  the complainant in time  the papers were not forwarded to the O.P. No.2(NABARD) by the  O.P. No.1(Bank) because of that the complainant had been deprived of  to get subsidy  40% subsidy amount.

At  this stage this forum observed   the interest of justice  would met if  the O.P. No.2 (NABARD) received  all the documents filed by the complainant  from the O.P. No.1(Bank) relating to the case and be settle the matter and to release the subsidy amount 40% a sum of Rs.16,200/-  in favour of the   complainant with in 60 days.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                                                       ORDER.

            In  resultant   the complaint petition stands allowed  in  part  on  contest against  the O.Ps. 

The O.P No.2 (NABARD) is   ordered  to receive all the documents  pertaining to  this case from the O.P. No.1(Bank)  to facilitate  for resolving the grievances and settle the matter at their level  and make  endeavor   to  pay the subsidy amount 40% of the invoice i.e. a sum of Rs.  16,200/-  to the complainant with in time frame for which he is entitled to get as per the terms and condition of his scheme.  The O.P. No.1 (Bank)  is directed to  submit all the documents pertaining to the above case  to the O.P. No.2 (NABARD)  within 15 days. The complainant  is directed to  co-operate the  O.P. No.1   and take initiative  to supply    the required  documents as  available with them for early compliance of the order.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.

The OP  No.2 (NABARD)  is      ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  60 days from the  date of  receipt  of this order.      Serve the copies of above order to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

            Pronounced on this         16^th.   Day of  March  ,   2018.

 

 Member.                                                            Member.                                                             President