IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of November, 2017
Filed on 11.02.2015
Present
Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.45/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party-
Sri. R.B. Nijo 1. The Chairman & Managing
Road Land, Poonthoppu ward Director, Union Bank of India
Alappuzha Union Bank Bhavan
(Adv. Gulsar) 239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg
Nariman point, Mumbai-400021
Maharashtra
2. The Regional Manager
Union Bank of India
M.G.Road, Statue,
Thriuvananthapuram
3.. The Branch Manager
Union Bank of India
Vadakkanal, South Bank Road
Mullackal, Alappuzha
(Adv.C.Parameswaran)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant had taken a loan for Rs. 4,00,000/- from the opposite party, he had taken the loan as per the Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme as directed by 3rd opposite party. He has joined in the scheme on NABARD and availed financial assistance from the opposite party on the basis of assurance given by the 3rd opposite party that the complainant would kept 25% of the amount by way of subsidy. After availing the 1st allotment the complainant enquired with the 3rd opposite party about the application for getting subsidy from the NABARD and he replied that he had sent an application to the NABNARD. Complainant had remitted Rs.2,71,672/- towards loan amount till 27/5/2014. Since he had not get the subsidy amount he directly contacted the NABARD office and came to know that opposite party had not send any application of the complainant for getting subsidy benefit. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint is filed.
2. Version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
Complaint is filed after the period of 2 years and hence it is barred by the law of limitation. The complaint that who has not fulfilled the obligation of the scheme introduced by NABARD is not entitled to claim the benefits. Moreover the implementation and monitoring of the scheme are within the realm of the NABARD and the allegation contrary to it as averred are false and hence denied. The allegation that the complainant has joined in the scheme of NABARD and availed financial assistance from the opposite party on the basis of the assurance given by the 3rd opposite party that the complainant would get 25% of the amount by way of subsidy etc are utter false hood and baseless. No such assurance was ever given by the opposite party as alleged. The allegation that the complainant is eligible for Rs.1,00,000/- as subsidy is false and hence denied. It is true that the complainant had availed the loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the opposite party. However, the opposite parties have never volunteered to avail financial assistance on its own, without a motion from the borrower. It is submitted that the complainant has not followed the procedure for alleged subsidy from the NABARD and thereby the same lapsed. There was not contract for assisting the complainant for getting alleged subsidy was undertaken by the opposite parties and the averments to the contrary are totally false. The opposite party had never assured the complainant that opposite party will follow the procedure for disbursement of subsidy by NABARD. The opposite party asserts that the complainant had not given any authorization to the opposite party to process the application for subsidy. Now, the complainant with a view to evade the payment of the amount outstanding in the loan account putting up rival fictitious stories and the complainant may be put to strict proof thereof. The complainant had never approached this opposite party with any request
for getting subsidy and this opposite party had never assured or informed the complainant that the opposite parties shall arrange subsidy as claimed. It is submitted that at any rate, this opposite party was not under a contractual obligation to do the procedure for getting subsidy from its part. It is submitted that the complainant is duty bound to convince the NABARD about his entitlement for subsidy. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot be blamed for the non disbursement of the subsidy in issue.
Complainant was examined as PW1, documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A6. One witness was examined as PW2. 3rd opposite party was examined as RW1, documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B2
5. The points for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. According to the complainant he had availed a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the opposite party under the Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme. He further alleged that he had taken the loan on the basis of the assurance given by the 3rd opposite party that he would get 25% of the amount by way of subsidy. Opposite party admitted that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- and denied the further allegations. According to the opposite party the complainant had not followed procedure for alleged subsidy form the NABARD and there by the same lapsed. Opposite party further stated that the complainant has not full fill the application of the scheme introduced by NABARD and hence he is not entitled to claim the benefits. While cross examine the 3rd opposite party he admitted that the 1st allotment of the loan amount was on 31/5/2011 and thereafter they sent a letter to NABARD and reply also was received. But he failed to produce any evidence for the same.
Moreover he admitted that the complainant’s project can be included under the Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme. He also stated that the loan was granted after understanding that the complainant was conducting a poultry Farm. Ext.A1 is the circular about Dairy and Poultry Venture Capital Funds-Dairy Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (DEDS). As per the clause four of the scheme, ‘Proposals sanctioned and disbursed by the banks on or after 1st September 2010 will be covered under the revised scheme i.e. DEDS only. As per the clause 8 . Banks shall continue to claim interest subsidy in respect of regular accounts under DVCF on an annual basis till the repayment period is over. Ext. A2 is the project report submitted by the complainant. According to the complainant he remitted loan installment amount till 27/5/2014 and thereafter he came to know that opposite party had not submitted any application for the benefit under Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme to NABARD. Complainant produce information sought under Right of Information Act and it marked as Ext.A6. Ext.A6 shows that no application in complainant’s name has been received in NABARD from the opposite party bank. Opposite party has no case that they have neither accepted the project of the complainant nor granted loan under the scheme. But their main contention is that complainant has not full filled the obligation of the scheme introduced by NABARD and he is not entitled to claim the benefit. At the same time opposite party failed to prove that what are the obligation of the scheme to be full filled by the complainant. On verifying the scheme we came to see that after releasing the 1st installment and the Bank has to apply to NABARD for sanction and release of eligible subsidy.
7.. Failure on the part of the 3rd opposite party in applying to NABARD or secure release of eligible subsidy amounts to defect and deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Benefit of benevolent scheme cannot to be denied by the action or inaction from the part of officers of the opposite party bank. Only on 27/5/2014 complaint came to know that opposite party had not submitted any application for the benefit under Dairy Entrepreneurship Development Scheme to NABARD. Hence the complaint is not barred by limitation. As per clause 9.1 of Ext.A1 after the disbursement of 1st installment of the loan, the bank shall apply to the concerned Regional Office of NABARD for sanction and release of subsidy. The last allotment of loan amount was on 25-11-2011. So opposite party is bound to adjust the subsidy amount from 25/11/2011 onwards.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to adjust the amount of Rs 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) with interest at the rate of 13.2% from 25/11/2011 towards the amount due from the complainant in his loan account. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards cost of proceedings. Since primary relief is granted no order or as to compensation. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th November, 2017.
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Nijo.R.B(Witness)
PW2 - Toji (witness)
Ext.A1 - Circular
Ext.A2 - Project Report
Ext.A3 - Letter dtd. 27/5/2014
Ext.A4 - Letter dtd. 4/7/ 2014
Ext.A5 - News paper cutting
Ext.A6 - RTI reply from NABARD
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Safeeque Hassan.M (witness)
Ext.B1 - General Term Loan Agreement
Ext.B2 - Letter of Guarantee.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-br/-
Compared by:-
