Karnataka

Kolar

CC/2/2016

S.Venkatesha Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 25/01/2016

Date of Order: 03/10/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 03^RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

PRESENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB…..    MEMBER (In-charge President)

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 02 OF 2016

Sri.Venkatesha Babu,

S/o. D.Sriramaiah Shetty,

Aged About 45 Years,

R/at: Jakeer Hussen Mohalla,

Near S.F.S. School,

Srinivaspur.

 

(In-person)                                                                        ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

The Chairman,

Pragathi Krishna Gramina

Bank, Head Office, No.32,

Sanganakal Road,

Gandhi Nagar, Bellary,

Karnataka-583 103.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. B.N.Vasudeva Murthy, Advocate)       …. Opposite Party.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint through post on 25.01.2016 Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) has sought, issuance of directions to the OP to deposit the subsidy amount of Rs.14,400/- with interest with regard to solar water heater and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and another Rs.25,000/-, in total a sum of Rs.64,400/- to his account bearing No.64019736409 of State Bank of Mysore, Srinivaspur Branch, Srinivasapur and any other reliefs as the Forum deems fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, he has purchased Tata BP Solar on 20.07.2012 from “Ashwini Enterprises” Tata BP Solar India Limited, Kanchi Building, M.G. Road, Chinthamani, bearing TIN No.29020465504, by obtaining loan at Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Somayajalapalli, Srinivaspur Taluk, Kolar District, on 09.07.2012 bearing Account No.82415101027512 for a sum of Rs.32,000/-.

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, as per the Ministry Of New and Renewable Energy there was capital subsidy of 30% according to that, he has applied to OP for subsidy as per the norms and conditions of the NABARD.  As there was no response from the OP he has written a letter on 15.10.2014, stating that, the solar water is 200 LPD, FPC, each square meter is Rs.3,600/- subsidy i.e., for 200 LPD it is four square meters subsidy of Rs.14,400/-, this was the amount he suppose to get as soon as getting the loan.

 

(c)    It is further contends that, according to him, he had repaid full loan amount with interest.  Even after completion of 03 years also he has not received any subsidy.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

(d)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted the following documents:-

(i)    Copy of professional courier,

(ii)   Ashwini Enterprises Bill,

(iii)  Ashwini Enterprises installation certificate,

(iv)   Ashwini Enterprises Proforma of performance warranty,

(v)    Annexure-7 duly signed by the bank,

(vi)   Copy of letter dt: 15.10.2014 given to Chairman, Bellary,

(vii)  Copy of letter dt: 15.10.2014 given to Regional Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Kolar.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued with regard to the case on hand, OP has put in appearance through its said learned counsel and submitted written version resisting the claim of the complainant in toto.

 

(a)    It is specifically contends that, as per the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission Subsidy Scheme launched by Government of India, the OP – Bank had announced a scheme by its Circular No.76/2011-12, dated: 22.11.2011.  Under this Scheme the subsidy would be provided by the Government and not administered by the OP-Bank. 

 

(b)    According to OP, the guidelines of this Scheme are, ‘on receipt of claim forms from the Regional Office, F.I. wing will send claim forms to NABARD.  On receipt of subsidy and refinance from NABARD, the same shall be sent to branches.  Subsidy will be kept in back end and no interest is to be charged from the date of credit of subsidy.  Lock in period for back end subsidy is 03 years.  Hence, the loan cannot be closed within 03 years.  On receipt of refinance from NABARD, to the extent of refinance amount, branches should charge only 5% interest.  For the rest of the amount normal branch continue to charge normal interest as per sanction/as applicable.

 

(c)    Thus the OP has been restricted to provide financial assistance to the beneficiary to purchase the unit from authorized/approved dealer and claim subsidy from NABARD through Bank’s H.O., Bellary and once received the subsidy stipulated by the NABARD.

 

(d)    It further contends that, accordingly the OP branch sanctioned a loan of Rs.32,000/- and made a claim with NABARD, but it has not yet received the subsidy.  Once it receives, it would be credited as per the guidelines.  And that, the OP is not authority to sanction subsidy.

 

(e)    It contends that, in the loan application – PGBF 3/1-there is no mention of subsidy.  The entire loan of Rs.32,000/- has to be repaid in 60 EMIs of Rs.710/- each.  Since this is a backend subsidy scheme the borrower will not get the subsidy amount immediately after disbursement.  Accordingly OP bank is only a financing agency and NABARD is the agency for the scheme to extend subsidy to utilization of solar energy.  The OP bank has taken up the claim with NABARD and still the correspondence between OP bank and NABARD is going on.

 

(e)    It admits that, once the OP get subsidy from the NABARD it will provide to the customer and has made claims before NABARD on 26.05.2014 claim No.03/2014-15.  And thus OP had never rendered deficiency in service.  So contending, dismissal of the complaint with costs has been sought.

 

(f)     Along with the written version the learned counsel appearing for OP has submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i)    Loan Application.

(ii)   Claim Application to NABARD dated: 26.05.2014 with list of beneficiaries.

(iii)  Annexure-VII Form (Claim Form) dated: 10.07.2012

(iv)   Circular of Opposite Party – Bank.

(v)    Account extract of the complainant.

 

04.   As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet right from filing of the complaint to till 23.09.2016 though several opportunities have been given on different dates the complainant is unmindful, in the sense he is continuously absent.  However the order-sheet reveals that, the evidence and written arguments of complainant was taken as not filed.  Hence the case was posted for OP evidence.

 

05.   On 24.06.2016, the learned counsel appearing for the OP has submitted affidavit evidence of Sri.H.N.Muniswamanna, Senior Manager, Pragathi Gramina Bank, Somayajalahalli Branch, sworn on behalf of OP – Bank.  And on 15.07.2016, the learned counsel appearing for the OP has submitted written arguments.

 

06.   On 23.09.2016 heard the oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for OP.  Since the complainant is continuously absent, even then we have proceeded to consider the complaint on merits.

 

07.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

(A) Whether the OP is guilty of deficiency of service?

(B) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

(C) What order?

 

 

08.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A):-  In the Negative

POINT (B):-  In the Negative.

POINT (C):-  As per the final order

for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

09.   To avoid repetition in reasoning and as these points do warrant common course of discussion the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

(a)    OP is fair enough to admit that, the said installation and purchase of Solar System was under the subsidy Scheme which was suppose to grant by NABARD.  Once it receives subsidy by NABARD the same will be deposited to complainant’s account.

 

(b)    It is crystal clear that, when we go through the letter dated: 26.05.2014 it is the claim application to NABARD made by OP-Bank with regard to subsidy beneficiaries.  Hence there is sincere effort of OP.  As the OP – Bank is not sanctioning authority of subsidy and the correspondence is still pending as admitted by OP, so we are unable to conceed to the claim of the complainant.  As such, we cannot hold OP was guilty of deficiency in service.

 

POINT (C):

10.   Hence we proceed to pass the following:-

 

 

ORDER

01.   For the foregoing reasons the present complaint stands Dismissed.  We direct both parties to bear their own costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 03^rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2016)

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                MEMBER(In-charge of President)