Presented by Miss R.Pattnayak, President.

(1) The Complainant above named filed a complaint petition before this Forum that as per the scheme of the Govt. he had applied to avail a loan under the “Gramodyog Rojogar Yojana” given by the the Commissioner of Khadi and Village Industries. To implement the scheme, the Opposite Party above named sanctioned a loan of Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakh)only in favour of the Complainant. Out of the sanctioned loan amount the Complainant availed only a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakh). Out of the availed loan amount the Complainant refunded the entire loan amount except the balance amount of Rs. 2,86,120/-(Rupees two lakh eighty six thousand one hundred twenty)only. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the Complainant is entitled to avail subsidy of Rs. 2,86,120/-(Rupees two lakh eighty six thousand one hundred twenty)only on his total loan.

(2) Further case of the Complainant is that, as per the scheme the Opposite Party should have sponsored the name of the Complainant or his nominee to undergo E.D.P. Training for the purpose of availing the subsidy amount. The Opposite Party never sent any letter to undergo E.D.P. Training to the Complainant. As such the Complainant is deprived to get subsidy amount from the Bank. He approached the Opposite Party bank and ultimately issued Pleader Notice on Dt.03/05/2010. Though the reply was given by the Opposite Party, but it was baseless and no way related to the fact of the case. However, he again sent a reply to the Opposite Party bank on dated 25/06/2010.

(3) The Complainant claimed to refund a sum of Rs.2,86,120/-(Rupees two lakh eighty six thousand one hundred twenty)only towards his subsidy amount. Besides the said amount, he also claimed that the Opposite Party is also liable to pay interest to him @ 7.5% to such deposit with effect from Dt.20/01/2006 till the date of payment of the subsidy. The said amount would be of Rs.96,593/-(Rupees ninety six thousand five hundred ninety three)only up to Dt.20/07/2010.

(4) Further more, it is alleged by the Complainant that, he has deposited Rs. 1,66,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty six thousand)only in his current account bearing C.A. No.4024534 and the Opposite Party should refund the same. He also claimed Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards his expenses for Pleader Notice, mental agony and for approaching the Opposite Party from time to time. Not only this but also he claimed that due to negligence of the Opposite Party, he could not proceed in his work and for which he is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only per month which will be about Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only. So in total he claimed Rs. 6,92,793/-(Rupees six lakh ninety two thousand seven hundred thirty three)only from the Opposite Party as mentioned above. In support of his case, the Complainant has filed documents which are annexed in the case record.

(5) The Opposite Party appeared and filed his written statement/ version on Dt.08/07/2011 stating that the Complainant had availed loan to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakh)only for his brick industry in the name and style of “Raja Machine Brick Kiln” under the Gramodyog Rojgar Yojana and availed finance from the Opposite Party in his loan Account No. 01220607158174. As per the scheme the Complainant has to under go E.D.P. Training and produce the relevant certificate along with the inspection report of the unit by the Opposite Party and there after, the Complainant will be entitle for the subsidy. The Opposite Party also intimated the same in his reply dated 04/06/2009 and Dt.25/05/2010, which are marked as Exhibit “F” and “E”.

(6) Further, the Opposite Party states that, the Complainant has never gone for the E.D.P. Training nor he started the project of Brick industry. Only to get subsidy he had availed loan. As such he is not entitled to get the benefit of subsidy. He is also not entitled to get the other amounts claimed by him as he did not fulfill the conditions of the scheme. The Complainant is also not a consumer as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act. So, the case filed by the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.

(7) Both the Parties submitted their argument and the Opposite Party has filed the following documents which were marked as exhibits on behalf of the Opposite Party.

(a) Statement of Account of Term loan of Complainant – Ext “A”

(b) Statement of Account of Term loan of Current Account – Ext “B”

( c) Copy of Format of sponsoring the beneficiary for undergoing E.D.P. Training Dt.05/01/2006 and Dt.15/10/2008.- Ext “C” and “D”.

(d) Letter dated 23/06/2008 issued by the Director Khadi and Village Industries Commissioner to the Complainant. - Ext “E”.

(e) Letter of Chief Manager of U.Co Bank, Sambalpur Dt.04/06/2009. - Ext “F”

(8) The Complainant has also filed the xerox copy of the Pleader's Notice issued through his Advocate Sri Bighnaraj Mishra as well as the reply Dt.25/05/2010 issued to his Advocate with copy to him.

(9) Perused the documents available in the case record and heard the argument of both the Parties and perused the written arguments filed by both the Parties.

We perused the current lone account statement which is marked as Ext-”B”, where we found that on Dt.04/01/2006, Rs.1,60,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty thousand)only was deposited in the account and on Dt.05/01/2006, the Complainant withdrawn the amount. From which it is very clear that, the Complainant has never utilised the amount and just went on transacting the amount and withdrawn the amount. So the Opposite Party bank is not liable to refund the Rs. 1,66,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty six thousand)only. From the entire evidence, it is clear that, the Exhibit “E” clearly shows that the Director of Khadi and Village industries has given reply on the letter of the Complainant Dt.02/04/2008 and Dt.23/04/2008, that the director had intimated the Complainant in his letter Dt.05/06/2006 to produce the registration fee with application in prescribed proforma and to submit the copy of E.D.P. Training Certificate but till Dt.23/06/2008, the Complainant did not produce the same. So he is not entitled to get subsidy as well as the interest on the Margin Money of subsidy granted under the scheme. The copy of the said letter was also sent to the Opposite Party for information and necessary action.

(10) Further more the Branch Manager of U.Co Bank, Sambalpur had also intimated the Complainant in his letter Dt.04/06/2009 that the Complainant did not comply the E.D.P. Training inspite of Notices given to him vide Exhibit “F”, he is not entitled to get the benefits under the scheme. The Complainant has filed the reply given by the Advocate for the Opposite Party to him Dt.25/05/2010, where it is mentioned in para-3(three) that the Complainant failed to submit the E.D.P. Training certificate. There is no document available that the Brick industry was in running condition, the Complainant has to produce the inspection report. So he is not entitle to get the benefit. The Opposite Party has not caused any negligence towards the Complainant.

(11) Form, the entire evidence, it is clear that, the Complainant could not able to produce the E.D.P. Training Certificate before the Opposite Party, as mentioned in Ext “E” and “F”.

Due to non compliance as mentioned above, the subsidy was not released in his favour. As such the Complainant is not entitled to get the subsidy as well as the interest and other benefit there of.

- O R D E R -

The case of the Complainant is here-by dismissed and the Complainant is not entitled to get any benefit of subsidy as well as the other reliefs claimed by him.

The case is disposed off accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

                                                                                                            I agree,

( Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)                                                            (Smt. Anjali Behera)

            P r e s i d e n t.                                                                        M e m b e r.