Karnataka

Kolar

CC/97/2023

Sri.S.R.Venkatesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Executive Officer - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 22/05/2023

Date of Order: 30/01/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:30^th DAY OF JANUARY 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:97/2023

Sri. S.R. Venkatesh,

S/o. L. Ramaiah,

Aged about 62 years,

R/at Shettyhalli Village,

Kolar Taluk.

(Rep. by Sri. A.V. Ananda, Advocate)                 ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

1) The Chief Executive Officer,

Kolar & Chikkaballapura Dist,

Central Co-operative Bank Ltd,

Kolar Town,

Kolar District. 

(Rep. by Sri. C.B. Jayarama, Advocate)

 

2) The General Manager,

National Bank of Agriculture of Rural Development Bank Ltd,

Tippusulthan Palace Road,

Post Box No.1811,

Fort, Bangalore-560018.

(Ex-parte)

 

3) The Manager,

The Karnataka State Co-operative

Apex Bank Ltd, (scheduled) No.1,

Uthunga, Papmpa Mahakavi Road,

Chamarajpet, Fort,

Bangalore-560018.

(Rep. by Sri. Sidhartha Srikrishna, Advocate)  ….Opposite Parties.                                                                   

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. That the complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the OPs alleging deficiency in service and pray to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10.00,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of subsidy credited to the OP opponent till its realization and the cost of the proceedings.

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is having account with the OP.No.1 bank.  It is stated that, the complainant had obtained loan amount of Rs.40,00,000/- during the year 2019/20 from OP.NO.1 bank for the purpose of construction of poultry farm.  It is stated that complainant is paying regular loan installments.  It is the specific case of the complainant is that, at the time of availing said loan amount the Opponent bank had assured that 25% of the subsidy will be given to the complainant from the NABARD and Apex Bank.  It is further stated that, as per the terms and conditions complainant has constructed poultry farm shed and thereon the officials of the Apex Bank were visited the spot, that is poultry farm shed and made all the enquires and submitted the reports to the concerned, accordingly the NABARD and Apex bank has released the subsidy of Rs.10,00,000/- for the complainant to the Opponent bank, as the said subsidy will be issued in bulk to the total beneficiaries.  It is alleged that, though subsidy of Rs.10,00,000/- has been given to the Op bank but the same was not credited to complainant’s loan account for the reason best know to the Ops.  Further complainant states that, though he was enquired with the Op bank regarding non-credit of subsidy amount, but the Op bank have lodged the same for one reason or other reason but no correct information was given to the complainant and ultimately informed the complainant that no such subsidy issued to the complainant from the NABARD and Apex bank in respect of complainants loan.    It is stated that, complainant learnt that on 20/08/2019.  The NABARD and Apex bank authorities have uploaded the details of the 9 beneficiaries in the NABARD Ensure Portal through the online and the complainant is also one of the beneficiaries and his name is listed at number one and subsidy has been issued to the bank account.  It is stated that, it is also clearly mentioned all the beneficiaries name, their I.D, the Opponent bank account number and IFSC CODE for which account, the same has been issued at the last column it is clearly mentioned that subsidy is successful.

 

3. Further complainant states that, since the subsidy of Rs.10,00,000/- has been issued to the opponents bank by Apex bank, but the opponent bank deliberately has not credited to the complainant account which amounts to deficiency in service and intentionally caused loss to the complainant with illegal and mollified intention.  The Op bank has not credited to complainant account subsidy amount for which complainant is entitled.  It is stated that, complainant got issued legal notice dated 18/04/2023  though notice served to Op bank On 19/04/2023 but the Op bank has not complied the same nor issued any replay.  Further alleged that, even the subsidy has been obtained in the name of Venkatakrishnappa S.C of Shapur who has not obtained any loan, which clearly shows that Op bank is at fault.  Hence this complaint.

 

4. Upon admission of the complaint and on issuance of notice OP.No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its version.  In the version it is admitted that the complainant had obtain the loan amount of Rs.40,00,000/- during the year 2019/20 from the OP.No.1 for the purpose of construction of poultry farm.  It is also admitted that, the complainant is paying regular loan installments.  It is denied as false and incorrect that the OP bank was assured the complainant that the 25% of subsidy will be issued to the complainant by NABARD and Apex bank.  Further denied that, the authority visited the spot and after the enquire submitted the report to the commission, accordingly NABARD and Apex bank released the subsidy amount infavour of complainant to the Opposite bank.  Further denied that, subsidy issued in bulk to the total beneficiaries.  Further the OP.No.1 bank denied that subsidy amount of Rs.10,00,000/- given to the Op bank and the same is not credited to the complainant  loan account.  It is also denied that, no information is given to the complainant and particularly denied that complainant is one of the beneficiaries and whose name is listed at Number 1 and also denied deliberately OP.No.1 bank has not credited the subsidy amount to the complainant account as false and incorrect.  Further denied that, subsidy amount was released in the name of Venkatakrishnappa S.C whose name was not obtained any loan in the OP.No.1 bank.  Further contended that, had issued replay notice to the complainant on 06/02/2023. 

 

5.   It is contended that, OP.No.1 bank submitted the loan papers to the Apex bank through mail dated 18/08/2021 as per the directions of NABARD and Apex bank.  It is contended that, the scheme of subsidy is under the control of NABARD as per the directions of NABARD and Apex bank the OP.No.1 bank is acting and as per its directions OP bank has sent the details of loanee to the Apex bank on 18/08/2021 and there is no negligence on the part of Op bank officials.  Further contended that, the subsidy scheme will be considered by NABARD as per the rule and regulations of the NABARD.   It is contended that, the project report prepared and submitted by the borrower in which the borrower is not depending on the subsidy amount, he has projected to repay the complete loan with interest, by earning income but not on subsidy.  Hence contended that, borrower is fully responsible for repayment of the loan. 

 

6. Further contended that, that GOI budged some amount under National livestock mission under the said scheme on first come fist sanction basis they were sanctioned subsidy.  It is also contended that, before the sanction of loan the budget amount was completely exhausted at NABARD.  Hence contended that, it is not a mistake of Opponent bank. On the above said grounds OP.No.1 bank prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

7. It is note worthy to mention that, during the course of proceedings on submission of Ops NABARD and Apex bank are the competent to authorities to sanction the loan and thereon filed an application to implead the NABARD and Apex bank as parties to the proceedings.  Accordingly I.A filed by the complainant is allowed, and notices of impleading application were sent to the NABARD and Apex bank. Against the service of the notice to the   Apex bank and the Apex bank filed its objections and subsequently filed memo stating that their objection filed may be considered as their version.  However despite service of notice OP.No.2 failed to appear before this commission, consequently OP. No.2 placed exparte.

 

8.   In order to prove the case of the parties both the complainant and the contesting opposite parties have filed their affidavit evidence along with documentary evidence.

 

9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, the OP.No.1 District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, filed to process the subsidy amount of Rs.10,00,000/ given by the NABARD  infavour of complainant loan account  which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.No. 1 to 3?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What order?

 

  We have heard the arguments of the parties.  Our answers to the above points are as follows.

 

Point No.(1) :-    In the partly Affirmative.

Point No.(2) :-    In the Affirmative.

Point No.(3) :-    As per the final orders for the following.

 

REASONS

10. Point No.(1):-  On perusing the pleadings of the parties.  It is an undisputed fact that, the complainant is the customer of the OP.No.1 bank (i.e. District Central           Co-operative Bank Ltd.,).  Further it is not in dispute that, the complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- from the OP.No.1 bank during the year 2019/20 for the purpose of poultry farm.

 

11.  It is the specific allegation of the complainant is that, OP.No.1 bank failed to extend the benefit of 25% of subsidy amount to an extent of Rs.10,00,000/- given by the NABARD and caused the loss to the complainant. 

 

12. Per contra OP.No.1 bank contended in its version and in the affidavit evidence, the bank while advancing loan to the complainant, no promise or assurance given to the complainant that they will extend the benefit of NABARD to an extent of Rs.10,00,000/- infavour of the complainant but also contended that, complainant cannot be depend upon the benefits of the NABARD and he shall repay the entire loan amount with interest.  Further contended that, NO subsidy has been issued to the complainant from the NABARD and Apex bank.  Further contended that, OP.No.1 bank sent the loanees list through mail to the concerned on 18/08/2021.  The subsidy scheme will be considered by the NABARD as per the rules and regulations of the NABARD.  As such there is no dereliction of duty and negligence in performing duty by the manger and staff of the OP.No.1 bank.  The non considering the benefit under the scheme of NABARD.  Complainant is fully responsible of repayment of the loan amount.

 

13. Further in the version of OP.No.3 Apex bank also contended that, as per the NABARD and Apex bank guidelines the loanees list shall be uploaded in two stages for seeking benefit under the NABARD scheme.  Further contended that, on 19/08/2019 through e-mail submitted the application to the OP.No.3 bank.  Further contended that, on 20/08/2019 and for seeking subsidy same was uploaded in the ENSURE-PORTAL along with 9 applications were also uploaded in the ENSURE POTAL.

 

14. Further contended that, to get subsidy as per the guidelines the application of NLM shall be uploaded in the ENSURE PORTAL  in two stages, during first stage, the bank or the Financial institution have to upload the subsidy application of beneficiary and after post validation and after release of fist installment of loan within 30 days again have to update the same about the uploading, if the bank or the financial institution failed to update the same (required data) within 30 days the application of beneficiary for subsidy will automatically erase from the system.

 

15. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant and the complainant filed affidavit evidence and documentary evidence.  On perusal of the affidavit evidence it discloses that, complainant deposed that on 20/08/2019 the details of the 9 beneficiaries of NABARD Ensure Portal through the online and he is  also one of the beneficiary and his name is listed at number one and it is also clearly mentioned all the beneficiary names their ID, OP bank account number and IFSC code etc., On perusal of the information given by the OP.No.1 bank dated: 06/04/2023 it discloses that, on 18/08/2019  it is intimated by the bank to the Apex Bank CFA Branch through e-mail regarding the loan obtain by the complainant and also uploaded the list of 9 beneficiaries on 20/08/2019 to the NABARD Ensure Portal through online.  Further on perusal of letter dated: 21/08/2019 issued by the Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank limited it also discloses that, initially on 20/08/2019 through e-mail uploaded in NABARD Ensure Portal about the 9 beneficiaries and it is also supported by the document regarding the initial upload in respect of the loan of the complainant as shown in the ink page No.7 to 10 as per the documents produced by the complainant in the list of documents.  Further on perusal of the statement of the Kolar and Chikkaballapura DCC Bank limited it discloses that, for Kolar Rs.1,44,89,600/- amount was released under NLM scheme from the Government.  Further on perusal of documents at ink page No.12 it discloses the loanees name and the subsidy amount shown as per the list but surprisingly complainant name is not reflected in the said beneficiary list. On perusal of the documents produced at ink page No.10 the name of the complainant uploaded during the initial stage but unfortunately not come on beneficiary list.  Further on perusal of the letter dated: 20/03/2023 it discloses that, complainant given the requisition letter and enquiry why the subsidy amount was not given to him, though Apex Bank’s intimated about the sending of beneficiary amount to the OP.No.1 Bank.  Further the complainant also got issued the legal notice dated: 18/04/2023 to the chief Executive Officer of the OP.No.1 Bank and the acknowledgment filed is also reveals the service of the notice but the OP failed to give befitting reply to the said notice.  All these documents duly established that the complainant continuously follow up the benefit extended by the NABARD and Apex Bank but the OP Bank is duty bound to give befitting reply to the legal notice or to the letter given by the complainant but for the reasons best known to the OP.No.1 Bank did not reply the notice and failed to furnish correct information in following to get benefit under the NABARD scheme.  Hence the complainant rightly canvassed that duty of the Bank to intimate to the NABARD/Apex Bank for subsidy.  Bank intimated regarding loan to the complaint concern on 19/08/2019 through e-mail to the authority, after intimation and after disbursement of first installment of loan it is the duty of the Bank to upload and update the same in the required ensure portal but the OP Bank failed to upload the status of disclosing the release of first installment within 30 days.  Further OP.No.3 Apex Bank clearly contended that, after initially uploading the loan sanction to the complainant and it is the duty of the OP.No.1 Bank to upload the fact of releasing the first installment and update the same in the required portal within 30 days otherwise the initial uploading the fact regarding the loan sanction to the beneficiaries will be erase.  Further the OP.No.3 Apex Bank also contended that, no such information during second stage of loading in the portal about the release of first installment loan amount and update the same and in failure of the uploading in the required portal by the OP.No.1 Bank complainant will not get the benefit.  Whereas, OP.No.1 Bank did not denied the contention of the OP.No.3 Apex Bank to get subsidy as per the guidelines of the application of NLM shall be uploaded in the ENSURED PORTAL in two stages during first stage, the bank or the financial institution have to upload the subsidy application of beneficiary and after post validation and after release of first installment loan within 30 days again have to update the same about the uploading, if the bank or financial institution failed to update the same (require data), within 30days the application of beneficiary for subsidy will automatically erase from the system, however OP.No.1 Bank failed to demonstrate that, they have followed the guidelines of the NLM and uploaded in the ensured portal within 30 days the application of beneficiary for subsidy.  When the Apex Bank taking such contention the burden of proving the fact of uploading in 2 stages as stated supra on the OP.No.1 Bank, but the OP.No.1 Bank failed to discharge its obligation in respect of compliance of mandatory requirements.  Complainant being the former who raised the loan from the OP Bank for the purpose of construction of poultry form and our Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that, poultry forming is an agricultural activity cannot be considered commercial by the Gram Panchayat, therefore levy any taxes from the above ruling of the Hon’ble High Court complainant being an agriculturist taken the loan from the OP.No.1 Bank to an extent of Rs.40,00,000/- it is also not denied specifically that the NABARD through Apex Bank extend the benefit of 25% of the subsidy amount to the loanee agriculturist.  Furthermore on perusal of the evidence placed on record the Bank being the service provider it always cautiously ensure the security of the loan advanced to its customers and equal duty to protect the interest of its customers.  On the basis of the available evidence on record and also on foregoing reasons OP.No.1 Bank not acted diligently to protect the interest of the complainant and thereby due to dereliction of the duty of the OP.No.1 Bank complainant has to suffer and such dereliction of the duty amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.No.1 Bank only.  Under the circumstances NABARD Bank or the Apex Bank have no role to play except the information given in ensure require portal by the OP Bank and in our view both OP.NO.2 & 3 Bank not committed any deficiency in service.   Accordingly we answered Point No.(1) in the partly affirmative.

 

16. Further as an admitted fact complainant was obtain the loan amount of Rs.40,00,000/- from the OP.No.1 Bank for  the purpose of poultry farm, though NABARD through Apex Bank extended the benefit of 25 % of the subsidy amount to the legitimate loanee but due to default act of the OP.No.1 Bank the OP.No.2 through Apex Bank did not consider the subsidy amount to the complainant for not uploading and update the require data to concerned authorities by the OP.No.1Bank under the circumstances due to fault of the OP.No.1Bank complainant cannot be made victim for the wrong done by the OP.NO.1 Bank.  Hence we are of the consider opinion that the OP.No.1 Bank is liable to pay Rs.10,00,000/-to the complainant’s loan account along with accrued bank rate of interest.  Further due to act of the OP.No.1 Bank, it made the complainant to wander from pillar to post and hence complainant is entitled for Rs.2,000/-towards the cost of the proceedings.    Accordingly we answered Point No.(2) in the affirmative.

 

Point No. (3):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(1)&(2) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby partly allowed with cost.
2. That the OP.No.1 Bank i.e DCC Bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-/- along with accrued bank agreed rate of interest and directed to credit the said amount towards the loan account of the complainant.
3. Further OP.No.1 Bank is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
4. Further OP.No.1 Bank is directed to comply the orders shown at above SL.No. (2) & (3) within 30 days from the date of receipt of order and to submit compliance report within 45 days.
5. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

    (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 30^th DAY OF JANUARY 2024)

 

 

   MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT