DATE OF FILING: 26.9.2013.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 12.08.2016
Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member (W)
The complainant has filed this complaint under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (for short O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service and for redressal of his grievances.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the proprietor of M/S Durga Stone Crushers, situated at Dhobadi, P.O: D. Pattapur, Ps: Purushottampur, Dist: Ganjam is a beneficiary under the Khadi & Village Industries Commission, State office Odisha, Bhubaneswar and allowed to sanction an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakh) towards the project cost and accordingly KVIC wrote a sanction letter on 3.1.2008 to the Branch Manager, SBI, Sikiri Branch 0.P.No.1 and accordingly the 0.P.No1 released an amount of Rs.19,80,000/- (Rupees Nineteen lakh eighty thousand) to the complainant. Subsequently as per the REGP Scheme the complainant is eligible for margin money of Rs.3,70,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs seventy thousand) which should be kept in the Term Deposit of two years at the said SBI, Sikiri Branch in the name of the beneficiary. Neither the Opp. Party No.1 nor the Opp. Party No.2 took any step to comply the same for which the complainant is deprived of to avail the margin money of Rs.3,70,000/- till today for which the complainant suffers from heavy financial crisis and harassment with mental agony. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the 0.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the 0.Ps to pay the margin money of Rs.3,70,000/- with 14% interest for five years and also Rs.2,00,000/- towards the harassment and mental agony in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the 0.P.No.1 filed version/argument through his advocate. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint petition are not all true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Being approached by the complainant, the 0.P.No.1 sanctioned a term loan of Rs.16,35,000/- and CC of Rs.3,45,000/- totaling Rs.19,80,000/- for establishing a stone crushing unit and running the same. The aforesaid loan was sanctioned against the total projected cost of Rs.22,00,000/- where in the borrower has agreed to contribute a margin money of 10% i.e. Rs.2,20,000/-. The said loan was sanctioned with the usual terms and conditions of the bank. The complainant on 3.10.2008 executed all necessary documents in the prescribed formats of the bank where by binding himself with all terms and conditions mentioned in those documents. It is pertinent to note here that, the bank has never agreed to provide any subsidy to the borrower/complainant and nothing has been mentioned regarding subsidy in the loan documents executed by the borrower in favour of the Bank. So this O.P. is neither liable to pay the subsidy amount as claimed nor responsible for the consequences arising out of nonpayment of subsidy to the complainant. The loan application of the complainant was sponsored by KVIC vide its letter No. OZ/REGP/SS/Ganjam/2007-08/9032 dated 3.1.2008 and the complainant is entitled to get the benefits from the KVIC as per the terms and conditions of their scheme. As per that scheme, the complainant has to deposit 1% of the project amount i.e. Rs.22,000/- as registration fees in the name of the Director KVIC, Bhubaneswar. The O.P. vide its letter No. 23/43 dated 19.5.2008 alongwith Bank draft dated 19.5.2008 for Rs.22,000/- sent the same to the nodal agency towards the registration fees of the complainant. Thus, this 0.P has performed its role as a facilitator for sanction of the subsidy. The Khadi and Village Board has never denied the acceptance of the said registration fees alongwith necessary documents nor refunded the bank draft. In view of the above, the claim of the complainant if any is to be settled by the Khadi Board and this O.P. has no further role in the entire process. Being requested by the complainant and to help him out this O.P. has sent several reminders. The petition as framed is not maintainable in the eye of law due to non joinder and mis-joinder of parties. The petition is barred by limitation and the same has not been properly valued. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint against this 0.P.No.1 in the interest of justice.
Similarly, on notice the 0.P.No.2 filed version/argument through his advocate. In his written version /argument it is stated that the O.P.No.2 has not committed any fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality nature and manner of performance hence this proceeding s not maintainable against this O.P. Admittedly for each financial year beneficiaries under the then Rural Employment Generation programme in short "REGP" has been introduced. In the meantime the Government of India has approved the introduction of a new credit linked subsidy programme called "Prime Minister's Generation Programme" (PMEGP) by merging the two schemes that were in operation till 31.3.2008 namely Prime Minister's Rojgar Yojana (PMRY) and Rural Employment Generation Programme (REGP) for generation of employment opportunities through establishment of micro enterprises in rural as well as urban areas. Since REGP scheme has been merged with that or the PMEGP Scheme the present proceeding under the REGP is not maintainable. As per the schematic provision contained in either REGP or PMEGP the Government of India will provide funds under the schemes to the Nodal implementing agency i.e. KVIC which will in turn within a period of 15 days of the receipt of tie money from the Government, place the Margin Money (subsidy) funds with implementing Banks at the state level. It is also provided that after the release of Bank Finance either partly or fully, Bank will submit Margin Money (subsidy) claim in the prescribed format to the designated Nodal Branch of the State where KVIC has placed lump sum deposit of Margin Money (subsidy) advance in the Savings Bank Account in the name of the KVIC for release of Margin Money. Since the margin money was in deposit with the Nodal Branch of O.P.No.1 for release of margin money to the beneficiaries. In the absence of Nodal Branch of S.B.I. the present proceeding is not maintainable. The Government of India introduced this scheme for generating employment opportunities for different category of persons both in Rural and Urban areas and subsidy to the tune of 25% as middle ended subsidy is to be provided to the beneficiaries through the Nodal Branch of the financing Bank. The KVIC once deposited tie margin money in the Nodal Branch of the financing Bank. It is the duty of the financial Bank to make subsidy claim from the Nodal Branch and after receipt of the said subsidy it should be kept in the Term Deposit for two years at the Branch level in the name of the beneficiary. No interest will be paid on the TDR and no interest will be charged on the loan corresponding to the amount of the TDR. It has also been provided that in case of Bank's advance goes "bad" before two years period is over, Margin Money will be adjusted by the Bank to liquidate the loan liability of the borrower either in part or full. Margin money will be onetime assistance from KVIC. The KVIC never provides any financial assistance by way of subsidy and/or margin money directly to the beneficiary even though it is the Supervisory Authority. As has been submitted by the O.P.No.2 the Nodal Branch of State Bank of India, O.P.No.1 is the State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Bhubaneswar, where the margin money is deposited in lump sum. Since the margin money has already been deposited in the Nodal Branch the KVIC has no further role to play in the matter except controlling the unit. Since the claim of the complainant is barred by time the present proceeding is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed against this O.Ps. 4. On the date of final hearing, we heard the rival contentions of parties at length and have gone through the complaint of the complainant, written arguments filed by learned counsels for respective parties. We have also verified the case record and scanned the documents filed by O.Ps as well as by the complainant. After going through the pleading of parties and on verification of documents placed in case record, it is imperative to know and to decide whether the present complainant is a consumer or not under the O.Ps. If so, is there any deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps for non-release of subsidy money? And whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation under Consumer Protection Act in the fact and circumstance of the case?
First, we have to examine the question whether the present complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps or not? The Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 2(1) (d) has defined the term ‘consumer’. According to Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ‘consumer’ means any person who –
- Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
- Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised , or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;
(Explanation – For the purpose of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment)
On bare reading of the definition of the term ‘consumer’ as mentioned in para – (i) and (ii) above, it is clear that the first deals with goods and the other with services. Both parts first declare the meaning of goods and services by use of wide expressions. Their ambit is further enlarged by use of inclusive clause. The term ‘service’ has variety of meanings. The concept of service thus is very wide. How it should be understood and what it means depends on the context in which it has been used in an enactment. Clause (o) of the definition Section of the Act defines the term ‘Service’ it as under:
‘Service’ means “service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing, construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”
On perusal of the case record, it is found that the present complainant is a loanee under O.P.No.1 under REGP (a Government Scheme) for the year 2007-08. It is also not in dispute that the said scheme of Central Government is being implemented by O.P.No.2 in collaboration with O.P.No.1. It is also a fact on record that the present complainant was selected as a beneficiary of the said Scheme of the Government. Accordingly, the O.P. No.2 in his letter vide No.OZ/REGP/S.S./Ganjam/2007-08/9032 dated 03.01.2008 sanctioned and forwarded the loan proposal of Rs.22,00,000/- with capital expenditure of Rs.18,15,000/- along with working capital of Rs.3,85,000/- to O.P. No.1 under REGP scheme for the year 2007-08 to set up a Stone Crusher unit in the name and style ‘Sri Durga Stone Crusher’ as per the following conditions prescribed by the O.P.No.2.
- Beneficiary deposited his own contribution of Rs.2,20,00/- i.e. 10% (% in case of beneficiaries belonging to SC/ST/OBC/Women/PH/Ex-Servicemen/Minority/HBT Area/N.E. Region/Sikkim/A&N /Lakshapdeep) of the total project cost with the bank which is subsequently released to the beneficiary to establish the project.
- The project is located in the rural area as per the definition given in the REGP “Gramodyog Rojgar Yojana”. A certificate to this effect the competent authority be obtained and kept on the record.
- The project is a Village industry project in the negative list of the industries published by the Commission. In this case, the project does not come the negative list of Village Industries and,
- The fulfillment of per capita investment i.e. Capital Expenditure per artisan should not exceed Rs.1,00,000/-. In other words, the project should generate employment of 30 persons.
- The proposal activity must be new and not an existing.
Further, according to the conditions of the said letter, the beneficiary is also eligible for margin money of Rs.3,70,000/- being the general candidate being to general category as soon as the project is sanctioned in favor of the beneficiary , he is to deposit 1% of the sanctioned project amount of Rs.22,000/- as registration fee in the name of the Director, Khadi & V.I. Commission, Bhubaneswar. As per above conditions of the aforesaid sanction letter of REGP Scheme, the complainant also deposited 1% of project cost i.e. a sum of Rs. Rs.22,000/- before O.P.No.2 through a Bank Draft on dated 19.05.2008 towards registration fees, the document placed as Annexures in the case record.
5. On perusal of the letter dated 03.01.2008, it is clear that the O.P.No.2 has informed O.P. No.1 that the complainant entrepreneur is eligible for Margin Money of Rs.3,70,000/- being the general category applicant and at the same time he is to deposit 1% of the sanctioned project amount i.e. Rs.22,000/- as registration fee in the name of Director, Khadi & V.I. Commission, Bhubaneswar i.e. O.P. No.2. Accordingly the complainant has also deposited a sum of Rs.22,000/- in favour of Director, KVIC, Bhubaneswar through a bank draft dated 19.05.2008. In this respect we can say that the present complainant is a consumer under O.P.No.2 who has paid consideration for and has availed service for the purposed mentioned above. Similarly, the complainant is also a consumer under O.P. No.1, financer bank, since he has availed loan from that branch and has also deposited his own contribution towards establishment of the village industry and he is a loanee which is beyond any dispute or doubt.
In the light of aforesaid discussion and on examination of both the terms ‘consumer’ and ‘service’, it is clear that a person who hires or avails any service for a consideration is a consumer. In the present dispute, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.22.000/- before O.P.No.2 vide Bank Draft bearing No.977024 dated 19.5.2008 towards registration fees and contributed Rs.2,20,000/- as margin money toward the project and availed services of O.P.No.1&2 and became a beneficiary of the REGP Scheme. So, it can’t be stated that the present complainant is not a consumer. The baseless argument by the O.P.No.2 that the present complainant is not a consumer is not acceptable. In our considered view the O.Ps are service providers and the complainant is definitely a consumer. There is no substance in the stand taken by O.P.No.2 that the complainant is not a consumer. It is a fact that the complainant has also paid Rs.22,000/- towards registration fee to the O.P. No.2 as discussed above. The unreasonable and unjust stand taken by the O.P.No.2 is not acceptable hence rejected.
From the aforesaid discussion it is established that the present complainant is a consumer under both O.Ps who has availed services from both on payment of consideration. On further perusal of case record, it is also found that the complainant on 19.06.2013 has requested to the Nodal Branch of SBI alleging that the O.P. No.1 i.e. SBI, Sikiri Branch, Ganjam is not claiming for Margin Money to your Nodal Branch, Bhubaneswar, hence had requested said nodal branch through email to claim the margin money from O.P.No.2 and to settle the same but that also did not yield any result. Similarly, the complainant has also redressed his grievance before the O.P. No.1 Bank to claim his margin money from Nodal Branch through a letter dated 20.06.2013 which was duly received and acknowledged by the O.P.No.1. However, the learned counsel for complainant during the course of hearing contended that despite compliance by the complainant to the guidelines of REGP and even after several requests neither the O.P. No.1 nor O.P.No.2 helped to release the subsidy money of complainant which amounts to deficiency. He also placed all the supportive documents before the Forum for our perusal.
On reply the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 contended that there is no deficiency in service on part of this Opposite Party vide in its letter No.23/43 dated 19.05.2008 along with bank draft dated 19.05.2008 for Rs.22,000/- sent the same to the Nodal agency towards the registration fees of the borrower. He further argued that the O.P.No.1 also forwarded the margin money claim application to the Nodal Agency i.e. O.P.No.2 through financing Bank’s Nodal Branch mentioning every details of the beneficiary and project details like details of beneficiary, location of project unit, no. of employees, particulars of own contribution, details of sanction of bank, date of amount of first disbursement along with filled in form of money receipt for Rs.3,70,000/- executed in the name of Chief Executive Officer, Office of the Commissioner, Khadi and Village Industries, Mumbai-56 towards the payment of margin money in respect of project for M/s Sri Durga Stone Crusher sanctioned for Rs.19,80,000/- by O.P.No.1 at Sikiri Branch with the project cost of Rs.22,00,000/-. Hence, contended that this O.P.No.1 has performed its role as a facilitator for sanction of the subsidy. The O.P.No.2 has never denied the acceptance of the said registration fees along with necessary documents nor refunded the bank draft. In view of the above, the claim of the complainant if any is to be settled by the Khadi Board and this O.P. has no further role in the entire process and to help the complainant the O.P. Bank has sent several reminders. So there is no deficiency in service on part of the O.P.No.1 and the case may be dismissed against O.P.No.1 in the interest of justice.
Similarly, the O.P.No.2 in his reply contended that as per the scheme provision after the release of the bank finance either partly or fully, bank will submit Margin Money (subsidy) claim in the prescribed format to the designated Nodal Branch of the State where KVIC has placed lump sum deposit of margin money advance in the savings bank account in the name of KVIC for release of margin money. The margin money is deposited with the Nodal Branch of O.P.No.1 for release of margin money to the beneficiary. He also submitted that the Nodal Branch of the scheme is State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Bhubaneswar, where margin money is deposited in lump sum. Hence, the margin money has already deposited in the Nodal Branch, the O.P.No.2 has no further role to play in the matter except controlling the unit and since the claim of the complainant is barred by time and the present proceeding is not maintainable and liable to b e dismissed
6. We also perused the above pleadings of O.P.No.1 as well as O.P.No.2 and verified the case record. On verification of the documents placed on case record as filed by O.P. No.1 it is found that the O.P.No.1 has forwarded the margin money claim of the complainant vide letter No.Br/23/43 dated 19.05.2008 as submitted above by the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 along with all documents and a draft of Rs.22,000/- with a certificate in the prescribed application format stating that the instant margin money claim is in conformity with the guidelines and instructions issued by RBI, KVIC and O.P.No.1 Bank. The O.P. No.2 though sanctioned the loan and received the registration fee of Rs.22,000/- did not bother to sanction the subsidy money in favour the complainant despite request made through O.P.No.1 and even writing several letters personally. On a query about margin money, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 has taken a stand that the subsidy money has been deposited in the designated Nodal Branch of the State i.e. State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Bhubaneswar but he failed to show any document to prove his stand and no materials submitted by him to convince the Forum in this regard. In our view, the O.P.No.2 deficient in service since though he sanctioned the loan to a budding entrepreneur but he failed to sanction the margin money of a successful government scheme.
With regard to deficiency in service on part of the O.P. No.2, we would like to say that the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps since she is a beneficiary under REGP Scheme lunched by the Government of India and jointly implemented by O.P.No.2 in collaboration with O.P.No.1 who are the service providers. On perusal of the case record, it appears that O.P.No.1 is implementing agency of the Scheme and O.P.No.2 is sanctioning authority of loan proposal under REGP Scheme for the year 2007-08 vide No.OZ/REGP/S.S./Ganjam/2007-08/9032 dated 03.01.2008. Accordingly, the O.P.No.1 i.e. State Bank of India, Sikiri Branch, Ganjam on 15.02.2008 sanctioned the loan amounting to Rs.19,80,000/- in favour of the complainant including working capital of Rs.3,45,000/- to set up a self-employment project namely M/s Sri Durga Stone Crushers, Gandala as per the guidelines of REGP Scheme as mentioned in the said letter placed in the case record. The O.P. No.1 also disbursed the first installment of the loan amounting to Rs.1,09,500/- on 07.03.2008 in favour of the complainant to proceed with the project. The complainant also deposited a sum of Rs.1,65,000(Rs.5,000/-+Rs.60,000/-+Rs.1,00,000/-) in his savings Bank A/c No.30310776908 on 15.01.2008, 04.02.2008 and 07.03.2008 respectively towards own contribution. The O.P. No.1 had also intimated the matter to O.P. No.2 regarding release of margin money in the prescribed form vide his letter No.Br/23/43 dated 19.05.2008 with a request to release the subsidy amount in favour of the complainant. It is also a fact that O.P.No.1 has certified that the complainant has contributed Rs.1,65,000/- towards the project and has also admitted to have made spot visit and verified location of the unit. The O.P.No.2 could have rejected his project proposal from very beginning but instead of doing that the said O.P. No.2 put the young entrepreneur under loan burden. Despite all efforts by the complainant as well as O.P. No.1, O.P.No.2 did not listen to the genuine grievances of the complainant and not released the subsidy money, which amounts to deficiency in service. From the case record, it is also evident that there is no negligence on part of O.P. No.1 since O.P. No.1 has sanctioned the loan timely as per the scheme guidelines and accordingly the matter was informed to the O.P.No.2 in the prescribed form with a request to release the subsidy money as discussed above. However, the O.P.No.2 did not take any timely step to release the margin money of the present complainant which proves his callous attitudes towards public.
In a democratic country, the Government implements welfare schemes like REGP for the greater benefit of educated unemployed youths. The objective of the scheme is to provide self-employment to the educated unemployed entrepreneurs like the present complainant Sri Simanchala Sahu to make transformation of rural lives. The O.P. No.2 on frivolous and technical pleas not released the margin money which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant as a result the very purpose of the government scheme has been defeated. Government authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest but they can’t raise frivolous and unjust objection and cannot act in a callous and high handed manner. They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted activities requires to be corrected. It is high time that government and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizen. The State must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not as far as possible, adopt the practice which is against legitimate and just claim of the citizens. In the present case, the O.P.No.2 by non-releasing the margin money of the complainant caused a legal injury to the complainant which should be compensated suitably.
The jurisdiction and power of the courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded as observed by Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd Vs. Broome reported in 1972 AC 1027: (1972) 1 All ER 801 on the principle that an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped by the rule of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. In Rookes V Barnard reported in 1964 AC 1129: (1964) 1 All ER 367, 410, it was observed by Lord Devlin, ‘the servants of the government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty or service’. In Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, 1994 1 Supreme Court Cases 243, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He, who is responsible for it, must sufferer it. Compensation or damage as explained earlier may arise even when the officer discharges his duty honestly and bona fide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behavior then it loses its individual character and assumes social significance. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging then the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil”.
In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that –
“The administrative law of accountability of public authorities for their arbitrary and even ultra vires actions has taken many strides. It is now accepted that the State is liable to compensate for loss or injury suffered by a citizen due to arbitrary actions of its employees. It is not necessary to consider whether there is any rational dividing line between he so-called sovereign and proprietary or commercial functions for determining the liability of the State”. In any case the law has always maintained that the public authorities who are entrusted with statutory function cannot act negligently. Under our Constitution sovereignty vests in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behavior before authorities created under the statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law. Each hierarchy in the Act is empowered to entertain a complaint by the consumer for value of the goods and compensation”
.
In the instant case, the O.P. No.2 though acts as implementing agency of said Government scheme with the help of O.P.No.1 to sanction loan under REGP programme for self-employment of unemployed youths, but even after compliance of the scheme guidelines, did not release the subsidy money amounting to Rs.3,70,000/- of the young entrepreneur despite several requests made by the complainant as well as the O.P.No.1, which amounts to deficiency in service. Due to non-release of the subsidy money, the young entrepreneur suffered loss both financially and mentally and harassed physically which cannot be compensated through money. In this age of modern democracy, both Central and State governments encourage for empowerment of youths. Young entrepreneur who was trying to earn her livelihood out of a beneficial government scheme again harassed by government officials due to non-release of her subsidy money, the reason best known to them. In our considered view, the said government officials are liable to pay compensation for their arbitrary action that has caused legal injury to the complainant. In the present dispute, we feel that according to the facts and circumstance of the case, the accountability for negligence shall be fixed on the government officials of O.P. No.2 who are at fault and compensation shall be recovered accordingly from the person(s) proportionately. To fix the liability on erring person(s) who are at fault, the O.P. No.2 should constitute a Committee of Officers for the said purpose that may enquire into the matter and find out the person(s) who are at fault/negligent and accountability should be fixed on the earring officials and recover the loss of government accordingly while making payment for compensation.
7. With regard to compensation for deficiency in service, in our considered view, legal injury is caused to the complainant due to negligence on part of O.P. No.2 for non-release of subsidy money amounting to Rs.3,70,000/- in favour of the complainant. The most disappointing thing is that a rural young entrepreneur is being harassed by the government officials even after compliance of requirements of O.P. No.2 as per REGP Scheme guidelines. In order to recognize legally protected rights of the complainant, he needs to be compensated by the O.P.No.2 appropriately.
The word ‘compensation’ is of very wide connotation. It has not been defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to dictionary it means, ‘compensating or being compensated; thing given as recompense’. In legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, when the Forum has been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely enabling the Forum to determine compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer which in law is otherwise included in wide meaning of compensation. The provision enables a consumer to claim and empowers the Forum to redress any injustice done to the complainant. Any other construction would defeat the very purpose of the Act. The Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. In the present case, we know that the O.P. No.2 committed gross negligence and deficient in service due to non-release of the subsidy money of the complainant in time even after several approaches made both by O.P. No.1 and the complainant. This caused unwanted interest burden on bank loan along with mental agony and harassment to the complainant. We feel there is reckless negligence on part of the O.P. No.2 for non-release of the margin money of the complainant. In this regard we would like to cite the authority of Lordship of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Consumer Unit and Trust and Trust Society, Jaipur Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Borada, Calcutta and Anr reported 1986-99, Consumer 1456(NS) observed as follows:
“Negligence is absence of reasonable or prudent care which a reasonable person is expected to observe in a given set of circumstance. But the negligence for which a consumer can claim to be compensated under this sub-section must cause some loss or injury to him. Loss is a generic term; it signifies some detriment, deprivation or damage. Injury too means any damage or wrong. It means invasion of any legally protected interest of another. Thus the provision of Section 14(1) (d) is attracted if the person from whom damages are claimed is found to have acted negligently and such negligence must result in some loss to the person claiming damages, injury, if any, must flow from negligence”.
According to above discussions, in the present case, a legal injury is cause to the complainant due to negligence on part of O.P. No.2, and, therefore, in order to recognize the legally protected rights of the complainant, he needs to be compensated.
8. As far as the compensation is concerned, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant from the year 2008 to till date. The complainant has also prayed to direct the O.P.No.2 to make payment of the interest burden on the subsidy amount of Rs.3,70,000/- with 14% interest for five years. In our considered opinion and to meet the ends of justice, we feel that Rs.20,000/- is just and proper towards compensation for the physical harassment and mental agony that has been caused to the complainant in the facts and circumstance of the case, since the young entrepreneur has been running after O.P.No.2 from the year 2008 till date to get his subsidy money. So we allow the said amount towards compensation to be paid by the O.P.No.2 from his office and as per the discussion held above the same amount may be recovered from the erring employees who are found negligent and in case of more than one, the amount to be recovered proportionately from them. Besides, we also direct the O.P.No.2 to release the subsidy money of Rs.3,70,000/- in favour of the complainant and to bear the interest of the said amount @6% per annum from the date of claim till actual payment is made.
In a sequel the above discussions and taking into account to fact and circumstance of the case, we would like to say that the complainant after harassment by government officials has come up with this case before this Forum to get privilege under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986. This Forum has been created under the beneficial legislation to help socio-economically underprivileged people to redress their grievance quickly with least expense in an expeditious manner. Considering the socio-economic background as well as keeping in view the spirit of the legislation and having regard to the verdicts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cases discussed above, we allow the case of the complainant against O.P.No.2 and dismiss against O.P.No.1 since there is no proof of deficiency in service on part of O.P.No.1.
9. In the result, we allow the case of the complainant against O.P.No.2 and dismiss against O.P. No.1. The O.P.No.2 is directed to release the subsidy money of Rs.3,70,000/- in favour of the complainant within 90 days of receipt of this order along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing this case in this Forum till actual payment is made. The O.P. No.2 is also directed to pay an exemplary compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards physical harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant from 2008 till date which is to be recovered from the erring employees/officials who are responsible for this. The above amounts to be paid to the complainant within same period as stated above, failing which the entire amount to be recovered from the O.P.No.2 under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the fact and circumstance of the case we are not inclined to impose further cost and the case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly
10. The order is dictated and corrected by me on this 12th day of August 2016. The office is directed to issue copy of orders to the parties free of cost as per rules.
