COMPLAINT FILED ON 19/07/2019

                                                                              DISPOSED ON 20/02/2023

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:415/2019

DATED:20^th February 2023

PRESENT: Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER                           Sri. H.JANARDHAN, B.A.L., LL.B., MEMBER  

:ORDER:

By Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER.

The above complaint has been filed by complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for seeking the relief, to direct the opposite parties to hand over original documents pertain to complainant and issue clearance certificate by closing the loan account and to award compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of complainant towards the mental shock pain and agony cause to the complainant from the acts of opponents and pass such other cost and reliefs as this Hon’ble commission deems fit to grant in the interest of Justice and Equity. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint:

         The complainant stated in his complaint that, the Opposite party No. 1 is Chief Secretary representing for Government of Karnataka, opposite party No. 2 is Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, the complainant has become one of the beneficiary under development of small scale industries scheme, the opposite party No. 3 is the financial institution where the complainant has applied for loan to install small scale industry. 

        3. The complainant has approached the opposite party No. 3 for financial assistance as per the direction of opposite party No. 2, with a detailed project report where in for the installation of Saw Dust Manufacturing Industry the total cost of the project is a Sum of
Rs, 9,90,000/- proprietors contribution is 5% of the require amount i.e. the contribution is Rs. 49,500/- and margin money (Subsidy) from District Industries and Commerce Department is 35% i.e. it amounts to Rs. 3,46,500/-. It is a Government of Karnataka, Scheme for upliftment of unemployed problem the Government of Karnataka has encourage the persons who have intended to start small scale industry in the state by granting subsidy amount in their favour, that after go through the project report and Government of Karnataka scheme after seen relevant documents of complainant the opposite party No. 3 has ready to provide financial facilities for installation of saw dust industry in favour of complainant, the complainant has provide all the necessary documents with regard to installation of industry, that after verify all the relevant documents opposite party No. 3 has agreed to sanction a Loan of Rs.9,40,500/- with a repayment schedule of quarterly payment for a sum Rs.47000/- each for a period of five years.

        4. Further, the complainant stated that, the opposite party No. 3 has called the complainant on phone and obtained signature on some printed forms on 08/01/2018 and further call him on 9/1/2018 stating that he has issued demand draft/ pay order/ banker’s cheque in favour of M/s B.T Engineering Works. The opposite party No. 3 without the knowledge and consent has sanctioned only Rs. 3,80,000/- instead of Rs. 9,40,500/- and out the sanctioned amount without the knowledge and consent of complainant has issued Demand Draft/pay order/banker’s cheque in favour of M/s B.T Engineering Works, which is against to rules framed by Government of Karnataka, IDBI policy, and RBI guidelines. The said M/s B.T Engineering Works after receipt of demand draft/pay order/ Banker’s Cheque has supplied old machinery to complainant, that after verify the same the complainant has returned the said machinery for want of new machinery, as the cost of new machinery is Rs. 9,90,000/-, the opposite party No. 3 has sanctioned only Rs. 3,80,000/- and out the same credited only Rs. 2,00,000/-and the said amount has been issued in favour of M/s B.T Engineering Works, the said amount is inadequate one which is not fulfil the requisite need of installation of saw dust industry, from the act of opposite party No.3 the complainant has unable to install the Saw Dust Industry and the amount credited to the account of complainant and same has issued in favour of M/s B.T Engineering works is also not fully recover. From the act of opposite party No.3 the complainant has sustained heavy losses. It is well within the knowledge of the opposite party No. 3. The M/s B.T Engineering Works has not supplied the machinery for installation of industry, even though the opposite party No. 3 have harassing complainant by saying that they have taking action against the complainant for non-payment of loan amount, this act of the ' opposite party No. 3 is against the humanity and it leads to deficiency of service.

5. It is further stated by the complainant that, the opposite party No. 2 has informed to  complainant through its letter dated 15/6/2017 that total cost of project of complainant is Rs. 9,90,000/- and the DLTFC has recommended total project cost is Rs. 9,90,000/-, but the opposite party No. 2 and 3 are colluded with each other has sanctioned only a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- out of which Rs. 3,00,000/-has been approved cost of project as Capital Expenditure/Term and opposite party No. 3 has sanctioned Rs. 2,85,000/-, further approved Rs. 1,00,000/- as Working Capital/ Cash Credit, opposite party No. 3 has sanctioned Rs. 95,000/- margin money is approved as Rs. 1,40,000/- and the complainant has to pay Rs. 20,000/- as beneficiary contribution and the repayment schedule is 48.months, which is not an adequate amount for installation of industry.

6. Further, submitted by complainant that, even though the opposite party No. 3 has sanctioned only Rs. 3,80,000/- in favour of complainant, even the amount has sanctioned the same has not been credited to the account of complainant this act of opposite party No. 3 shows their deficiency in service towards the complainant. The statement of complainant clearly shows that the opposite party No. 3 has credited only a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- into the account of complainant on 9/1/2018 and the same has issue in favour of M/s B.T Engineering Works, by way of demand draft/pay order/banker’s cheque without the knowledge and consent of this complainant, which is purely a deficiency in service. The total cost of project is
Rs. 9,90,000/- the opposite party No. 3 has sanctioned only
Rs. 3,80,000/- and issued Demand Draft for Rs.2,00,000/-, from the acts of the opposite party No. 3 the complainant has faced bottle neck problem for not sanctioning of adequate loan in accordance with the RBI directives, the need based loan sanctioned in favour of complainant he would have started the industry and pay the instalment regularly, due to the acts of opposite party No. 3 the complainant has unable to do the same, from the acts of opposite party No. 3 the complainant has Sustained heavy losses and suffering from mental shock, pain and agony, the same cannot be compensated by any means. The complainant is one of the customer of opposite party No. 3, instead of assist and help the complainant to solve the problem, they are creating problems to the complainant one after the other, without crediting the sanctioned amount to complainant account and without crediting subsidy amount to loan account the opposite party No. 3 has played fraud, and after laps of so many months the opposite party No. 3 has issued notice with a created and concocted story stating that the opposite party No. 3 has sanctioned a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as term loan and the complainant has not paid the loan amount. Hence the complainant is in arrears of Rs. 2,61,182/- as on 21/5/2019 and the said loan account has treated as NPA and call upon to pay the amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of notice, that the opposite party No. 3 has sanctioned only Rs. 3,80,000/- not Rs. 4,00,000/- furthermore out of Rs. 3,80,000/- only Rs. 2,00,000/- has been credited to the account of complainant and the said amount has been issued to M/s B.T Engineering Works by opposite party No. 3 itself, this act of opposite part No.3 clearly shows their deficiency in service.

        7. It is further stated by the complainant that, the complainant with an intention to start industry has obtained the shed and not started the industry, due the acts of opposite party No. 3 the complainant has sustained heavy loss, furthermore the opposite party No. 3 has not credited the sanctioned amount to the complainant, due to fault of opposite party No. 3 they have not to recover any amount from the complainant, they have liable to compensate the complainant, furthermore the M/s B.T Engineering Works has not supply the machinery, for that reason also the complainant has not able to start his industry, due to the act of opposite party No. 3 the industry become sick at the womb itself for all these the opposite party No. 3 has held responsible, for the wilful acts of opposite party No. 3.

8. It is further stated by the complainant that, the opposite party No. 2 has paid the margin amount subsidy amount of Rs. 1,40,000/to opposite party No. 3, even though the said amount has not been adjusted/ credited to the loan account of complainant, instead of doing so the opposite party No.3 has kept the said amount in fixed deposit, the said facts also not informed to this complainant, the same has came to the knowledge of complainant only after contact the opposite party No. 2, the opposite party No. 3 has not performed their part of contract, this act of opposite party No. 3 clearly shows their deficiency in service.

        9. It is further stated by the complainant that, the scheme of PMEGP, the purpose of scheme is for the upliftment of poor and needy person to become entrepreneur and to solve unemployment problem in our country, from the act of opposite party No. 3 it is clearly proves that purpose of PMEGP a Government of India programme is not been fulfilled in accordance with the Government of India policy, thus opposite party No. 3 has committed deficiency of service. the complainant has approach several time to opposite party No. 3 orally requested to sanctioned adequate loan for installation of industry or clear the loan by crediting the subsidy amount and finally sent letter to opposite party No. 3 on 29/5/2019 through RPAD call upon to credit the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- towards loan account and also inform the balance amount able to the bank, the said letter has been duly served on them no reply has been sent to the complainant, thereafter the complainant and his counsel has seek the bank statement copy of F.D of Rs. 1,40,000/- and project report, under Sec. 6(1) and 7(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005, instead of provide the copies the opposite party No.3 has issued the Notice with a created and concocted story, the act of opposite party No.3 clearly shows their deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint.

         10. After registering the complaint the commission has issued the notice to the ops and the same has been duly served Sri D.G.P has appeared and filed Vakalath on behalf of O.P.No.1 & 2 and not filed any objections/version to defend their case.  And Sri C.J.L. Advocate has appeared for O.P.No.3 and filed Vakalath and version and contended that the O.P.No.3 in there is hereby denied and the contents in the entire complaint is false.  Further, the opponent stated that the complainant is not the consumer of O.P.No.3, since, the complainant has availed he commercial loan under the Governed sponsored scheme. Hence, the subject matter is not coming under the purview of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum since he is not a consumer.

          11. Further, the O.P.No.3 stated in his version that the complainant might have misutilised the public Funds or Government Funds and he might have on intention to cheat or escape from the liability for the one reason or the other. Due to the act of the complainant, the O.P.No.3 has sustained the heavy financial loss and inconvenience and etc.  The Complainant has acted upon against the terms and conditions of the Government sponsored scheme. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or defective service or negligence of service by the ops at any point of time so, the O.P.No.3 prays that the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed.

12. The complainant got himself examined as P.W.1 by filing by Affidavit as a part of examination in-chief and the documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8 were got marked and closed their side evidence.

13. The OP. No.3 have examined as D.W.1 and closed the evidence on their side and no any documents produced by the opponents. Complainant and opponent No.3 have filed their version and written Arguments. Arguments of complainant and OP.No.3 were heard.

14. After perusal of the complainant and OP No.3 evidence

     and   all   documents   the  points  that   arise   for  our

     consideration for decision of above complaint are that:

1. Whether the complainant proves that he is the consumer?

2. Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in not handing over the original documents and clearance certificate to the complainant?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation as sought for from the OPs?

4. What Order?

15. Our finding on the above points are as follows:

1. Point No.1: Affirmative
2. Point No.2 & 3: Negative
3. Point No.4:As per final Order

REASONS

16. Point No.1: The complainant examined as P.W.1 and documents marked as Ex. A-1 to A-8 Viz., Ex.A-1 Project Report,
Ex.A-2 Xerox copy of letter dated 15/06/2017, Ex.A-3 Xerox copy of certified copy of statement of Account of Mohammed Sadiq, Ex.A-4 Xerox copy of requisition letter of Mohammed Sadiq Addressed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, APMC Branch, Chitradurga, dated:29/05/2019, Ex.A-5 Xerox copy of RTI application dated:17/06/2019, Ex.A-6 Xerox copy of Legal Notice dated:24/06/2019, Ex.A-7 Xerox copy of Amount deposited intimation dated:11/07/2018, Ex.A-8 Xerox copy of letter issued by State Bank of India Branch, Davangere dated:25/06/2019.  As per the above Exhibits, the complainant is a Consumer of OPs. So, the Point No.1 is affirmative.

17. Point No.2 & 3: The complainant has approached the opposite party No.3 for financial assistance as per the directions of O.P.No.2 with a detailed project report i.e., Ex. A-1 wherein for the installation of saw dust Manufacturing Industry.  The O.P.No.3 has called the complainant on phone and obtained signature on some printed forms on 08/01/2018 and further call him on 09/01/2018 stating that he has been issued Demand Draft / Pay Order / Banker's Cheque in favour of M/s B.T. Engineering works.  Further, it is stated that the said M/s B.T Engineering works after receipt of Demand Draft / Pay Order / Banker's Cheque has supplied old machinery to complainant, that after verify the same the complainant has returned the said machinery for want of new machinery, as the cost of new machinery is Rs.9,90,000/-. The complainant admitted in his complaint that the opposite party No.3 has sanctioned only Rs.3,80,000/- as per Ex.A-2 and out of the same credited only Rs.2,00,000/- and the said amount has been issued in favour of M/s B.T. Engineering Works on 09/01/2018. It is observed that, there is no objections from the complainant regarding amount paid as at the time of sanction. In addition to this, the OP No.3 has stated in their version that the complainant is not the consumer of the OP No.3, since the complainant has availed the commercial loan under the Government sponsored scheme. Hence the subject matter is not coming under District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and also that the complainant has not followed any of the terms and conditions of the Government sponsored scheme. Hence, it shows that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs, as the complainant has availed loan for running of saw Dust Industry.

Employment                                                                    Annexure-3

As per the above Annexure-3, it is evident, the complainant is paying salary to the employees to a tune of Rs.5,16,000/- per year.  It shows that, the complainant running the industry for commercial purpose.  It is shows that the Complainant is not coming under the definition of “Consumer”. Moreover, the complainant has not stated anywhere in his complaint that the complainant is running the industry to earn his livelihood and for self-employment.

As per section 2 (7) (ii) of consumer Protection Act, 2019 ‘Consumer means any person…..

ii) Hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

        18. On perusal of the complaint and documents submitted by the complainant, it shows that the complainant has obtained the loan from the OPs for commercial purpose, as such, the complaint filed by the complainant before this Hon'ble Commission is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opponents.  As such, the Point No.2 & 3 taken into consideration as Negative.

19. Point No.4: As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated there in we pass the following as per the points.

::ORDER::

         The present complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986, against the opponents is dismissed.

                      Communicate the order to parties.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 20 February 2023.)

LADY MEMBER                   MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

1. Sri Mohammed Sadiq S/o Late H. Azeez Sab by way of

affidavit of evidence.

Wetness examined behalf of opponents :

DW-1:- Smt. Savitri W/o Gangadhar Hegde, by way of affidavit of    

             evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of opponents:

Nil

LADY MEMBER                   MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

GM**