This case has arisen out of application U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The case of the complainant is that he is a customer of SBI, ADB Kaliyaganj and he applied for loan along with copy of Income Tax Return for the AY 2017-2018 (FY 2016-2017) in June, 2017 which was scrutinized and approved by the Project Implementation Committee (hereinafter referred to as “PIC”) & complainant’s project was passed under SVSKP Scheme and the Govt. of West Bengal, SHG & S.E Section, Uttar Dinajpur credited subsidy amount Rs.1,50,000/-to the complainant’s account to the Bank account of the O.P.No:1 on 28.11.2017 and O.P.No:1 allotted BSKP/SVSKP Loan of Rs.3,25,000/- vide loan A/c No:38054362445 but O.P did not provide loan sanction letter and copy of fixed deposit arisen out from Govt. subsidy as the bank kept lien of said fixed deposit.
That at the time of disbursement of loan O.P.No-1 told the complainant that the subsidy amount is kept as fixed deposit in his account and when the loan would close he would get subsidy amount with interest. After closing the loan on 04.09.2020 he verbally requested for refund of subsidy amount with interest and O.P replied that subsidy amount is in bank. Complainant wrote a letter dated 20.10.2020 claiming refund of subsidy amount sent by post but after receiving thereof O.P.No:1 did neither refund subsidy amount nor made any reply.
That complainant’s Advocate submit application under RTI Act, 2005 which the O.P replied very ambiguously that “we have taken up the matter with Govt. Department concerned for release of the same. On receipt we will credit to customer’s account”.
That thereafter, complainant’s Advocate sent legal notice dated 12.01.2021 directing refund of subsidy amount within 15 days from receipt thereof.
That complainant informed to Agent Customer to Reserve Bank of India, to SHG & SE dated 01.02.2021 from his personal mail, Ref: RBI CEPC Complaint No:202021309002689. O.P.No:1 informed AGM Customer Service LHO, Kolkata through mail on dated 18.03.2021 copy to the complainant that the applicant is not eligible for subsidy as per SVSKP Notification No:222-SH/2P-49/07 of Govt. of West Bengal, based on complainant’s IT Return for AY-2018-2019 (FY 2017-18) (ACK No:121262090160818).
On complainant’s application District SHG & SE Office, Uttar Dinajpur provided a copy of letter vide Memo No:40/DM/SHG & SE/Public Grievance/2020, dated 09.02.2021 in which it is stated that Self Help Group credited subsidy of Dipak Agarwala to O.P/Bank on 28.11.2017 but O.P/Bank is not crediting the said subsidy in his account.
That on 18.03.2021 O.P.No:1 sent email to complainant that he is not eligible for subsidy as his income for FY-2017-2018 exceeds Rs.15,000/- per month.
That on 27.03.2021 complainant sent mail to AGM Customer Service LHO, Kolkata stating that subsidy was granted on 28.11.2017 basis IT return for FY-2016-2017 & sent the subsidy to Bank Authority on 28.11.2017 but it sanctioned the loan on 03.11.2018 after 11 months of holding the subsidy.
That on 26.03.2021 CEPC Kolkata, RBI sent email to complainant that online complaint is closed, without understanding the gravity of the complaint & without examining the proper fact of the case. The complainant prays for direction for refund of subsidy amount Rs.1,50,000/- with interest from 28.11.2017, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment, mental pain & agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
O.Ps contested the case by filing W.V admitting that complainant is the customer of O.P/Bank. Under BSKP/SVSKP Scheme complainant’s total Project Cost was Rs.5,00,000/- out of which Rs.3,25,000/- sanctioned on 03.11.2018 and on 05.11.2018 Rs.1,40,000/- was disbursed and remaining Rs.1,85,000/- was disbursed on 18.11.2019 and Rs.25,000/- was complainant’s own contribution.
That from 01.12.2018 loan repayment was started and the loan was closed on 04.09.2020. After closing of loan he demanded subsidy but his income for AY-2018-2019 was Rs.3,51,528/- and Rs.2,70,000/- in AY-2017-2018, higher than Rs.1,80,000/- i.e Rs.15,000/- per month as per the scheme.
That the complainant closed his loan account and he signed discharge voucher & received original land documents from O.P.No:1. Reply of RTI was properly given. That the complainant is not eligible for enjoying subsidy. There exists no deficiency in service, warranting award as prayed for. The complainant suppressed material facts and does not come with clean hand so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration
- Whether there was/ is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps which gives rise cause of action to file the case?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief (s) as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n w i t h r e a s o n s
At the outset have a look at scheme, namely, Swami Vivekananda Swanirbhar Karmasanasathan Prakalpa/SVSKP (Notification No:597/SH/IN-44 of 12, dated 19.09.2012) Scheme meant for individual/individuals (up to 4 nos.) called as “Atma Maryada” and for group of 5 and above entrepreneurs also called as “Atma Sanmman”, to generate self-employment in the Urban and Rural areas of the State through promotion of tiny scale units of production, manufacturing, trade, service or any other sector including agro-based industries, floriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry other than direct agriculture, applicable for “Unemployed Youth” who is not gainfully employed and is within the age of 18 to 45 years as on the date on which he or she makes an application for assistance under the scheme and preferably registered with any employment exchange.
Eligibility: An individual entrepreneur or a group of entrepreneurs preferably registered with any employment exchange of the State and whose family income (respective family income of individual member in case of a group) does not exceed Rs.15,000/- per month and, who intend(s) to generate income by setting up any viable unit of industry, trade, service etc. or reviving or improvement an existing unit, will be eligible under this scheme.
Funding pattern: Subject to fulfillment of all other conditions (vide Notification No:418-SH-2P-4907 of 20.06.2012).
- The State Government shall provide a subsidy/grant of 30% of the project cost, subject to a maximum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand) only in case of individual schemes (Atma Maryada) and a maximum of Rs.3,50,000.00 (Rupees Three lakhs Fifty thousand) only in case of group scheme (Atma Samman).
- 5% of the project cost shall be provided by the entrepreneur as margin money.
- The balance 65% of the project cost or the amount as may be required after deducting the entrepreneur’s contribution and Government subsidy from the total project cost will be provided by bank or West Bengal Financial Corporation or any financial institutions as term loan and/or working capital loan.
Admittedly, the complainant Dipak Agarwala is a customer/consumer of S.B.I, ADB, Kaliyaganj.
The case of the complainant is that in June, 2017 he applied for loan along with copy of Income Tax Return for the AY 2017-2018 (FY 2016-2017, Acknowledgement No:784044110280517, dated 28.05.2017 of Gross total income 170082/-) which was scrutinized and approved by the Project Implementation Committee (hereinafter referred to as “PIC”) & complainant’s project was passed, complainant being eligible below income Rs.15,000/- p.m i.e Rs.1,80,000/- p.a. Total cost of the project was Rs.5,00,000/- of which Rs.1,50,000/- was Govt. subsidy, Rs.3,25,000/- was Term Loan and/or working capital loan granted by S.B.I, ADB Kaliyaganj & Rs.25,000/- was complainant’s contribution/margin money.
From letter vide Memo No:40/DM/SHG & SE/Public Grievance/2020 dated 09.02.2021 it appears that Dipak Agarwala S.V.S.K.P beneficiary whose subsidy amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was credited to S.B.I, ADB Kaliyaganj A/c No:11250645011, vide Tran ID U000000308989132, dated 28.11.2017, has to be credited to Dipak Agarwala’s account, who took B.S.K.P/S.V.S.K.P Project Loan of Rs.3,25,000/- vide loan A/c No:38054362445, sanctioned/allotted on 03.11.2018, of which Rs.1,40,000/- then Rs.1,85,000/- were disbursed on 05.11.2018 & 18.11.2019 respectively.
Whatever the complainant alleges that O.P/Bank did not provide sanction letter and that at the time of disbursement of loan O.P told the complainant that the subsidy amount is kept as fixed deposit in his account and when the loan would be closed he would get subsidy with interest, appears to us dissatisfactory explanation.
There exist no satisfactory explanation why after receipt of subsidy amount Rs.1,50,000/- on 28.11.2017, the loan was allotted/sanctioned on 03.11.2018 (after lapse of 11 month) and disbursed thereafter. Letter of arrangement dated 03.11.2018 refers to complainant’s application dated 01.10.2018, prima facie shows delay on applicant’s part. Had he not been applied on such a belated date he should not enter into Loan Agreement dated 03.11.2018 because in the meantime he had supplied his Income Tax Return for AY 2018-2019 (FY 2017-2018, Acknowledgement No:121262090160818, dated 16.08.2018 of Gross total income 351528/-), which is root cause of denial of refund subsidy amount Rs.1,50,000/-, making complainant ineligible exceeding income Rs.15,000/- p.m i.e Rs.1,80,000/- per annum.
Admittedly, from 01.12.2018 loan repayment was started and the loan was closed on 04.09.2020 but O.P/Bank did not refund subsidy amount to the complainant in spite of his request, so his Advocate submits application dated 25.11.2020 under R.T.I Act, 2005, replied by O.P by its No:CMCS/2020-2021 of 111, dated 29.12.2020 that “we have taken up the matter with Govt. Deptt concerned for release of the same. On receipt we will credit to customer’s account.”
That Bank Authority by its Letter No:BR/ADV/43/19-20, dated 04.06.2019 informed the District SHG & SE Officer, Karnajora, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, with reference to its earlier Letter No:BR/ADV/99/18-19, regarding return of 06 SVSKP proposals, forwarding the Demand Draft for Rs.447900/- as the subsidy money of Dipak Agarwala and 5 others. The complainant in his written argument (Para-13) stated that Bank informed him that subsidy of complainant was returned to Govt. of West Bengal as he is not eligible for enjoying subsidy. Thus defence as to non-joinder of necessary party i.e “PIC” members debarred the complainant.
That complainant informed to Agent Customer, to Reserve Bank of India, to SHG & SE dated 01.02.2021 from his personal mail, Ref: RBI CEPC Complaint No:202021309002689. S.B.I, ADB Kaliyaganj informed AGM Customer Service LHO, Kolkata through mail on dated 18.03.2021 copy to the complainant that the applicant is not eligible for subsidy as per SVSKP Notification No:222-SH/2P-49/07 of Govt. of West Bengal, based on complainant’s IT Return for AY-2018-2019 (FY 2017-18) (ACK No:121262090160818). We are in agreement that S.B.I, ADB Kaliyaganj was wrong in arriving at such finding basing upon the Income Tax Return for AY 2018-2019 (FY 2017-2018) as the loan was sanctioned and subsidy was given on IT Return for AY 2017-2018 (FY 2016-17), which may occur due to complainant’s submission of IT Return for AY 2018-19 (FY 2017-18, ACK No:784044110280517) to the O.P/Bank.
That on 27.03.2021 complainant sent reply through email, copy to Assistant General Manager, Customer Service, LHO Kolkata, attaching the letter issued by District Officer SHG & SE dated 09.02.2021 but it lost its merit, as on 26.03.2021 CEPC (Consumer Education & Protection Cell), Kolkata, Reserve Bank of India sent email to the complainant and stated that online complaint No:202021309002689 is closed as there is no gravity. Rejection by CEPC, Reserve Bank of India, requires to be challenged before by appropriate higher authority, not in this forum.
Under above facts and discussion, we find that initially the complainant was eligible for refund of subsidy amount which was returned to the concerned authority & the loan account was closed and the complainant signed Discharge Voucher & received original documents from the bank, the complainant is not entitled to get refund of subsidy amount from Bank Authority/O.Ps at present & there exists no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and the complaint petition is not maintainable in its present form & law and the complainant is not entitled to get relief thereon.
In the result the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the C.C-14/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
