JUDGEMENT

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. Heard. Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of rival parties. During hearing of this case the complainant present in person accordingly the name of his advocate is deleted in the cause title of this case. 
2. The caption Consumer Complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging negligence, deficiency of service & unfair trade practice there on the part of the OP/Bank resulting injuries to the complainant.
3. Complainant seeks for the following relief(s): (i) an order directing the Op/bank to produce details of the account statements with reference to Account No  32115193347,(ii) an order directing the OP/bank  to adjust the subsidy amount of loan or otherwise to refund the excess amount paid by the complainant with interest from date of effective of the loan amount till date ,(iii) an order to refund the excess amount paid by the complainant to the OP/bank against the loan amount after proper calculation of the loan account ,(iv) an order to quash the letter of notice issued U/S 13(2) of SARFAESI Act on dt.18.09.2021 by the Op/bank to the complainant ,(v) an order to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-for mental agony caused by the Op/bank to the complainant ,(vi) an order to pay Rs.20.000/- towards litigation cost .And further prayed for all other relief(s) as deemed fit and proper.
4. Brief facts of the complaint are that, the complainant has availed a loan amount of Rs.17,00,000/- under a  benevolent scheme of government of Odisha  meant for the farmers and the loan scheme availed  is completely for agricultural purpose. As per the OP /Bank’s norms & guidelines as well as subsidy benefits of the government the loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant. The complainant had deposited and mortgaged his landed properties to the opposite party Bank for availing loan. After verifying all the documents the bank has sanctioned the loan amount to the complainant and release funds to the authorized agency for supply of the Combined Harvester machine to the complainant and in this respect the Op /Bank has issued a letter vide letter No.54/156 DT. 01/06/2012 to the  District Agricultural Officer, Dharamagarh ,Kalahandi ,Odisha copy of which is served to the complainant (Annexure -5).It is further contended that, the complainant received the said machine from the authorized agency of the OP Bank and used for  harvesting the crop but  such plan of the complainant failed to reach its target as a result  the complainant had  sustained  huge loss and the machine remained in idle. In spite of such loss the complainant used to pay the loan installment  periodically and   to enable the complainant for repaying  the debt outstanding amount.The OP Bank offered  OTS  and the complainant agreed to pay the outstanding loan amount  under OTS scheme but the OP Bank, due to official apathy ,could not allow the complainant proper time to comply the OTS and OTS did not materialize as  a result  interest amount against outstanding loan amount started running high day by day which exerted mental pressure on the complainant. The complainant time and again requested the OP bank to release the subsidy amount & to repay the loan amount but the OP Bank has not taken into consideration to release the subsidy amount and the loan account statement issued by the OP Bank is not correct for which the complainant is unable to repay the loan amount and the OP bank did not adhere to the government’s subsidy scheme.
5. The complainant further alleged that, the  OP Bank  issued notice  threatening the complainant to repay the outstanding loan amount but swayed away the subsidy benefits given by the government  to the farmers and in response to the notice the complainant has raised his objection against the incorrect loan account statement and  requested the Op Bank to finally settle  the disputed amount but the OP Bank did not pay any heed and lastly issued a notice U/s 13(2) of SARFAESI ACT  in order to  take the mortgaged property of the complainant directly into auction sale. On dt.18.09.2021 vide letter No.43/2021-22 the OP Bank has issued a notice to take action under the said provision against the complainant and demanded a sum of Rs.3,91,319.00 to repay  the bank which is grossly erroneous amount . It is further alleged that, the OP Bank has failed to perform its duties in accordance with banking norms and government guidelines as loan account of the complainant is not properly maintained for which the complainant has to repay more amount which exceeds to its limit. The complainant is a beneficiary farmer in the eye of the Government and the OP/Bank has only financed the loan amount being a public financial institute has no right to demand the disputed amount thereby caused gross deficiency in services resulting injuries to the complainant .Hence, this complaint.
6. Being notice the OP Bank appeared through their Learned Counsel Shri S.K.Agrawal and filed their written version denying the petition allegation on all its material particulars.
7. The OP Bank has admitted the facts that  ,it  has sanctioned the alleged loan amount and credited to the account of the Supplier M/s Shanti Automotives India Pvt. Ltd, towards purchase of Harvester Crop Tiger 30 TRAC of Class India Machine No.07065504 and the supplier has issued money receipt and Retail invoice in token of delivery of the Harvester and the complainant has acknowledged the received of the same. After delivery  of the Harvester the OP Bank wrote letter to the District Agricultural Officer, Dharmagarh vide letter No.54/156 dt.01.06,2012   stating therein that the Bank has financed the Combined Harvester to the complainant and requested  to release the subsidy amount of Rs.4,00,000/- which the complainant has applied for the same at their end  so that the same will be credited in the loan account of the borrower but the OP Bank  has not yet received any subsidy amount from the Government  and as such the  same amount is not yet credited to the account of the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the OP Bank is no way responsible whether the Harvester remained idle or he has sustained loss and even if the complainant has sustained loss still, he has to repay the loan amount along with interest as per the agreed terms.  As per the OTS scheme launched by the OP/Bank the complainant applied  for the same  and  on the date of submission of application the total outstanding amount  was Rs.9,84,401/- and after careful consideration  the OTS proposal of the complainant was considered  and it was fixed at Rs.7,32,000/-  and the terms of payment were intimated to the complainant is (a) Up front 25% of the settled amount Rsw.1,83,000/-(b) amount due in one month  75% of the settled amount Rs.5,49,000/-But the complainant deposited the upfront amount of Rs.1,83,000/-  and defaulted in repaying the remaining amount of Rs.5,49,000/- within one month as stipulated and as such the OTS was cancelled and the complainant is liable to pay the entire outstanding amount. The OTS scheme were being launched  only for a certain period and after expiry of the same the Bank branch has no authority to extend the time as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party. It is further submitted by the Op/Bank that, it is not the duty of the bank to see whether the subsidy amount was released or not rather the complainant should have taken appropriate steps for release of the same as because the complainant will be benefited out of the same. When the OP bank has not received the subsidy amount from the concerned department, the same was not credited in the loan account of the complainant and that, when the complainant did not repay the outstanding amount in spite of the reminder notice, the Bank issued notice U/s 13(2) OF SARFEASI Act on 18.09.2021 and demanded a sum of Rs.3,91,319/- and the issuance of notice  under SARFEASI Act is not a deficiency of service. It is further submitted by the OP Bank that, as per Section 34  of the SARFEASI Act “Civil Court not have jurisdiction-No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and financial institutions Act,1993 and that, even Civil Court has no jurisdiction to stay the proceeding this  Forum has also no jurisdiction to direct the OP Bank not to take any coercive action basing on the notice issued by the OP under the SARFEASI Act . If the complainant has any dispute as regard the claim made by the OP Bank then he should have approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Furthermore, the complainant has closed the loan account by depositing the loan amount under OTS and as such it can be inferred that, the petitioner has no claim or grievance against the OP Bank and as such the complainant is not entitle to receive any compensation from the OP Bank and that, this complaint needs to be dropped with cost as the complainant has harassed the Op  Bank by filing this  false case.
8. During hearing of case this Commission thinks it proper to add the OP No. 2, 3, & 4 as parties and accordingly issued notice through Registered Post to filed their written version but they have not preferred to contest the matter.
9. Parties lead their evidence on affidavit. The contents of affidavit evidence of complainant Amoj Kumar Panda is corroborating with the averment of the complaint petition. So also the evidence affidavit of one Surendra Kumar Jal, working as Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Bhawanipatna is corroborating with the averment of the written version of the OP Bank  but no documents as relied by the OP/Bank i.e Account Statement of Loan Account vide No. 32115193347 is filed by the OP Bank  for perusal.
10. The complainant to substantiate his claim has relied on and filed the following documents:-(i) Copy of notice issued by Op dt.18.09.2021 vide its letter No.43/2021/22 on the complainant, (ii)Copy of reply made by the complainant dt.30.07.2019, (iii) Copy of OTS proposal of OP,(iv)copy of subsidy circular issued by Govt. of Odisha under the Department of Agriculture dt.07.12.2012,(v)Copy of subsidy deduction amount of Rs.4,00,000/- against the loan amount of Rs.17,00,000/- intimated to the complainant by the Op bank on det.1.06.2012 vide office letter No.54/156 dt.1.6.2012 and (vi) copy of guideline for National Agriculture Development Programme (NADP) Rastriya Krishi Vikas Yojana(RKVP) of August,2007.
11. Facts not in dispute are that, the complainant has availed a loan from the OP/Bank for purchasing of agricultural equipments i.e. Combined Harvester machine under a benevolent scheme of government of Odisha where the complainant is entitle to get release of subsidy of Rs.4,00,000/- to be credited directly to his loan account and that, the cost of the said machine/ Combined Harvester is directly remitted to the supplier by the op Bank. It is also admitted  that, no subsidy is released by the concern department i.e DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD PRODUCTION,BHUBANESWAR ,GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA  either to the OP /Bank or to  the complainant as on date and that, the complainant  failed to repay the loan for which  the OP Bank has issued demand notice vide No . SARFASEI/43/2021-22 Dt. 18.09.2021 (Annexure-1 to the complaint petition) to the complainant but later on loan is repaid.
12. Admittedly, alleged loan advanced by the OP/ Bank to the complainant is already settled between the parties as on date. However, the complainant has alleged negligence & deficiency of service on the part of OP/ Bank for which the complainant has lost his entitlement of subsidy Rs.4,00,000/- over the sanction loan amount and forced to pay high amount to the Op/Bank caused him financial loss & mental agony .
13. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents relied on by both the parties placed in the record, evidence affidavit adduced by both the parties, the points for consideration before this Commission are :- whether the complainant is maintainable under C.P.Act before this Commission and whether there is any negligence & deficiency of service there on  the part of the Op/Bank resulting any injuries to the complainant and whether the complainant is entitle for the relief as claimed?
14. Here the complainant has availed loan from the OP/Bank is not disputed, thus the complainant is a consumer of the OP/Bank is proved on admission.
15. This Commission is agreed with the submission of the OP/Bank that, the OP Bank is no way responsible whether the subject machine/Harvester purchased by the complainant remained idle or he has sustained loss and even if the complainant has sustained loss still, he has to repay the loan amount along with interest as per the agreed terms and further  agreed with the submission of the OP/Bank that, when the complainant did not repay the outstanding amount in spite of the reminder notice, the Bank has every right to issued notice asking the complainant to repay the out standings.
16. This commission also agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the OP Bank that subsidy under a government cannot be claimed as right of the loanee/ complainant. However  this Commission is not agreed with the submission of the OP Bank that,  “ it is not the duty of the bank to see whether the subsidy amount was released or not rather the complainant should have taken appropriate steps for release of the same as because the complainant will be benefited out of the same.”
17. The complainant proved on affidavit evidence vide para 14 that, he has relied on the documents filed there with the complainant petition are true & correct. Accordingly this commission has considered those documents as evidence in support of the pleadings of the complainant. It is seen that, the OP Bank has issued a letter vide RBD/54/156 dt.1.06.2012 to the Dist. Agriculture Officer, Dharamgarh stating there in that:- SBI, Bhawanipatna branch has financed one combined harvester to Shri Amoj Kumar Panda/ complainant for Rs.17,00000/-(Rupees seventeen lacs) and that, the complainant has applied for release of subsidy of Rs.4,00,000/-  from the District Agriculture Office, Dharamgarh, accordingly  requested for necessary arrangement to release the subsidy for credit to the loan account vide No.32115193347 of the complainant, copy of which is served to the complainant vide Annexure 5 of the complainant petition is not disputed . It is not disputed that, the complainant is entitled to get release of subsidy of Rs. 4,00,000/- to be credit directly to the  loan account vide No.32115193347 of the complainant there with  OP/Bank.
18. There is no cogent evidence available on record to hold that, said letter vide No.RBD/54/156 dt.1.6.2012 of the SBI, Bhawanipatna, Annexure – 5 of the complainant (SL No.v of para 14 of the affidavit evidence of the complainant) has ever been served to the District Agriculture Officer, Dharamgarh, Kalahandi for onward action to release the accrued subsidy amount directly to the loan account of the complainant. It reveals from the undisputed document vide Annexture-4 of the complainant petition (SL No. iv of para 14 of the affidavit evidence of the complainant) i.e. permit/supply order issued from the office of District agriculture Officer, Dharamgarh vide Dha/Com/0002/RK/2012-13 dt.7.12.2012 that, the subsidy amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is to be received by the Bank directly from the concern department remain undisputed. Nothing pleaded or placed on record to hold that the OP Bank has ever taken any  steps to get released of accrued subsidy benefit to the loan account of complainant We  are of the opinion that, duty casts upon the OP Bank to take proper steps to get   release of accrued subsidy amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the concern department to be credited to the loan account of the complainant and accordingly the loan account should be adjusted and there after account statement was to be  prepared to repay the rest amount by the complainant with accrued interest but here the Op Bank has admitted the facts that, accrued subsidy is not yet released certainly proved negligence & deficient service on the part of the OP Bank .
19.  In the above facts & circumstances, this Commission is of  the opinion that, the OP Bank has neglected to take proper steps to get release of accrued subsidy from the concern authority and ultimately the complainant suffer loss of  his entitlement i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- .The OP/ bank has recovered the said subsidy amount i.e. Rs.4,00,000 with interest from the complainant is not disputed but account statement of concern loan account is not placed on the record to ascertain the fact that how much interest over the subsidy amount is collected from the beneficiary lonee /complainant which clearly proved unfair trade practice & deficient service on the part of the OP/bank accordingly this Commission is of the opinion  that, the OP/ bank is liable to restored the same amount of Rs.4,0000/- & entire  interest collected over the said amount to the complainant
20. It may not be disputed here that,  Law makers of the nation is well aware of the existing  laws such as SARFEASI Act and brought   this Consumer Protection Act 2019 for protection of the interest of consumers.
21. Section 100 of C.P Act 2019 contents as follows: Act not in derogation of any other law.—“The provisions of this       Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.” As such the contention of the OP Bank that, this complainant is not maintainable before this commission is not acceptable.
22. The complainant has suffered injuries due to the negligence & deficient service on the part of the OP Bank is proved as such there is sufficient cause to present this complaint and it is found in time well maintainable before Commission.
23. In the light of above discussion and settled principle of law we are of the considered view that, there is negligence, unfair trade practice & deficient service proved on the part of the OP/Bank due to which complainant lost his entitlement to get release of accrued subside amount Rs.4,00,000/- and forced to repay the same with interest to the OP Bank . The demand Notice dt.18.09.2021 vide Annexure 1 of the complaint petition issued to  the complaint is found arbitral  certainly caused mental agony and financial hardship to the complainant as such the complainant is entitled to be compensated by the O.P/Bank adequately . It  shall be proper to pay  Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation with interest @12% p.a. from 01.06.2012 i.e from the date of acknowledgement of the Op/Bank with respect  to the entitlement of the complainant to get release of subsidy of Rs.4,00,000/- directly to the loan account of the complainant .
24. As the loan account has already been settled between the parties we do not thing proper to grant other relief(s) as claimed by the complainant.
25. Hence this complaint is allowed in part against the OP/Bank on contest and dismissed against other Ops exparte with following orders.

ORDER

The O.P/Bank is hereby directed to  pay compensation of         Rs 4,00,000 / with interest @12% p.a. from 01.06.2012 till its realisation and to pay   Rs 10,000 towards litigation cost to the complainant within four weeks from the date of received of this order, failing which the Op Bank  is  liable to pay  interest @18% p.a over the afore said award amount  till compliance  of this order.

Dictated and corrected by me.

President 

                 I   agree.

                                 Member

Pronounced  in open Commission today on this 13^th  March 2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.

Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.