Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/10/2022

Raj Kumar Panday S/O- Shib Prasad Panday - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Officer,National Harticulture Board - Opp.Party(s)

Pradeep Kumar Patel

10 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL                                     COMMISSION, JHARSUGUDA

                                                           ****************

                                         CONSUMER CASE NO.10/2022

Raj Kumar Pandey, age-51 Years,

S/o- Shib Prasad Pandey,

At: Debadihi,

Po/Ps/Dist.- Jharsuguda, Odisha…….……………….…….…………Complainant.

                                                 

Versus

 

1. The Chief Officer, National Harticulture Board,

8CRP, Ekamra Karan Road, N.I.Block, NI IRC village

Nayapali, Bhubaneswar,Odisha.

 

2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

Main Branch, Jharsuguda,

Po/Ps/Dist- Jharsuguda…….…………….………...…....……..Opp. Parties.

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                Sri P.K.Patel,Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.1                         Sri L.N. Guru, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.2                         Sri R.K. Dash, Adv. & /associates.

 

Present:-     1. Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President.

                     2. Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member.

 

Date of hearing- 12.10.2022                                        Date of order- 10.11.2022

 

Presented by, Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President : -

1.The case of the complainant is that the complainant had taken a loan Rs.10,50,000/-from O.P.No.2 for plantation of banana and mango. Out of it the O.P.No.1 has to give 40% subsidy.  The petitioner invested the money and did the plantation in the year-2017.  Due to failure of proper rain the banana scheme failed. The bank authority is demanding the loan amount with interest.  It is the defendant No.1 who has to pay 40% of the subsidy amount direct in the Bank towards payment of the loan amount and he has to communicated the same direct to the bank.  The O.p.No.1 has not given the subsidy amount till to-day.  For the reason the O.P.No.2 is demanding the loan amount from the complainant.  After knowing about the non-giving of subsidy amount the complainant went to the office of O.P.No.1 and requested them on last 10.02.2022 to give the subsidy amount to the bank. Again he went to the O.P.No.2 and requested to adjust the loan amount by way of subsidy.  But the O.p.No.1 refused to pay.  The O.P.No.2 is also demanding the money.  Hence there is deficiency in service by both the parties in payment of subsidy and adjustment of subsidy towards the loan                                           

2.     The case of the O.P. is that the O.P.No.1 in its version submitted that the complainant is not a consumer, the complainant is barred by limitation.  Further submitted that the case is not maintainable as it is hit by res-judicata and the complaint is hit by mis-joinder of parties.

3.   The O.P.No.2 has not appeared and set-exparte.

4. perused the documents filed by the complainant and the O.Ps. the following issues are framed:-

ISSUES:-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of O.p.No.1 and/or O.P.No.2?
2. Whether the complainant hit by res-judicata?
3. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the complaint is hit by mis-joinder of parties. ?
5. Whether the O.ps. are deficient in their service?
6. Whether the complainant is entitled for to get relief?

Issue No:-1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of O.p.No.1 and/or O.P.No.2?

           In this case the O.P.No.2 is the bank which has given loan to the complainant. There is a contract between the parties relating to payment of loan.  Hence the complainant is a consumer of O.P.No.2.

            The O.P.No.1 is a government agency of Central government and the complainant is a beneficiary under the scheme and he is not a consumer of O.P.No.1

           The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No:-2. Whether the complainant hit by res-judicata?

          The O.P submitted that the complaint hit by res-judicata as because the complainant filed two similar case bearing No.63/2019 and 64/2019 before this Commission.  Perused the record and it reveals that the C.C.Case No.63/2019 filed for supplying low quality plants. and C.C.Case No. 64/2019 filed for non-supply of drip pipes.  The present C.C.case No. 10/2022 filed for subsidy amount.  The cause of action in the above three cases are different, so the case is not barred by principled of res-judicata.  The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No:-3. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

              In the present case the complainant taken a loan and invested the money and did the plantation in the year-2017.  The pay back period of the loan which he has taken was 7 years.  Hence the case is not barred by limitation.  The issue is answered accordingly. 

   Issue No:-4. Whether the complaint is hit by mis-joinder of parties. ?

  Although the O.p.No.1 is a government agency, to answer the issues version of O.P.No.1 is required for judgement of this case. Hence the complaint is not barred by mis-joinder of parties. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No:-5. Whether the O.ps. are deficient in their service?

              In the present case the complainant taken a loan of Rs.10,50,000/- for banana  plantation from O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.1 has assumed to give 40% subsidy on the loan amount.  The O.P.No.2 on that basis granted the loan. The subsidy amount is Rs.5,47,966/-.  It is the duty of the O.P.No.2 to claim subsidy amount from the O.p.No.1 in time.  After repeated request O.P.No.2 had not adjusted the subsidy amount in loan amount. From year-2017 to till 2022 the O.P.No.2 had not taken any step to adjust the subsidy which amounts to deficiency in serviced on the part of O.P.No.2. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No:-6. Whether the complainant is entitled for to get relief?

              From deficiency in service of O.P.No.2 the complainant is entitled for relief.  The issue is answered accordingly.

              The case is followed by following order;-

                                          ORDER

           The complaint is allowed partly against the O.P.No.2.  For the deficiency in service the O.P.No.2 is directed to adjust the subsidy amount of Rs.5,47,966/-(Rupees five lakh forty seven thousand nine hundred sixty six only)  in loan amount  within one month.  Further the O.P.No.2 is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for harassment and mental agony along with  pay Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand only ) towards litigation expenses within one month from the date of this order, failing which the entire amount will carry 7%  interest P.A. till adjustment / realization.

 Order pronounced in open court on 10^th November, 2022. Supply free copies to the parties.

I Agree            

1. Agrawal, Member                              J. Mishra, President.

                                 Dictated and corrected by me

 

                                        J.Mishra, President.