DOF.24.11.2008 DOO.14.9.2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 14th day of September 2010 CC.283/2008 P.P.Raveendran, Sincere Computer & Voltage Stabilizer Unit, (KVIC) Registered) P.O.Chalad, Kannur 14. Complainant 1. Director, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. Director, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Micro Small and medium Enterprises, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai 56. 3. State Director, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, P.B.No.198, M.G Road, Trivandrum 1. 4. Assistant Director, Khadi & Village Industries Board, Nadathara, Thrissur 51 (Rep. by Adv. E.R.Vinod for Ops 1 to 4) 5. Project Officer, Khadi & Village Industries Board, Opp.K.V.R. Tower, Kannur 1. 6. Manager, Syndicate Bank, Branch Chalad, Kannur. Opposite parties O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to renew the registration and sanction the grand under PRODIP as prayed by the complainant with compensation and cost. The facts of the case of the complainant are as follows: Complainant is an ex-serviceman. For self employment complainant started a manufacturing unit of various house hold electronic products under KVIC REGP scheme by taking Rs.3 lakhs as loan from 6th opposite party. 3r opposite party issued the certificate of registration vide NO. Kerlaa/COR201/REDGP (MMS) 2002-03 dated 12.3.2003. The validity of certificate further renewed till 31.3.2007. The application for renewal from 31.3.2007 was submitted to opposite party on12.2.07 along with necessary documents and DD for the prescribed fee. On 9.7.2007 3rd opposite party informed the complainant to resubmit the renewal application in the enclosed format with recommendation of the financing branch, along with 5% of the total project cost by DD. Application attested by 6th opposite party submitted accordingly with DD for Rs.1500/-. The registration is not renewed till the date of complaint. Since the certificate was not renewed complainant could not sell the products or attend the mela. Complainant could not repay the loan amount or sell the products in the mela conducted by the Khady Board. Hence complainant suffered financial loss part form mental agony and pain. The delay for renewal is a result of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Application to provide grant also not considered. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite parties 1 to 4represented and opposite parties 5 & 6 subsequently called absent and set exparte. Opposite parties 1 to 4 filed version jointly. The contentions raised by opposite parties 1 to 4 in brief are as follows: The complainant’s electronic products manufacturing unit was registered under these opposite parties. The validity was up to 31.3.07. The allegation of the complainant that the renewal application with necessary documents and DD was submitted on 12.2.07 is not correct. The renewal of registration was delayed by these opposite parties are also not correct. On 97.07 3rd opposite party informed him to resubmit the renewal application with renewal fee 2 0.5% of the total project cost and recommendation by the financing branch. The opposite parties did not renew the registration is not correct. The allegations that he did not obtain renewal certificate could not attend the mela, could not repay the loan application submitted for grant and suffered loss and mental agony etc are false. The complainant applied for renewal of registration on 14.2.07 to3rd opposite party. As per the certificate issued in the year 2003 the complainant was authorized to manufacture the following item viz. Voltage stabilizer, Emergency light, CFL adaptor and Inverter and CFL DC adapter only. In his renewal application he claimed to manufacture some items of products like computer, electronic choke, tube frames, UPS and various electronic toys for children. Since the said application was not in proper form and the complaint did not comply the mandatory requirements, he was informed by the 3rd opposite party to comply the statutory requirement only there after complainant complied the statutory requirements and 3rd opposite party could proceed further. Before issuing renewal certificate the current working status of the unit and commencement of products are to be ensured by a physical verification and inspection by an authorized person. The third opposite party directed Sri. G. Ramachandan, ADO to make physical inspection and to file report. Report was received on 26.12.08 and thereafter issued renewal certificate on 29.12.2008 and he acknowledged the same on the day itself. There is no unnecessary delay or negligence on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties did not receive any application regarding the grant of loan. If complainant make an application that will be considered without prejudice. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 complainant and Exts.A1 to A6.PW1 cross examined for opposite parties 1 to 4 but they have not produced any evidence. Issue Nos.1 to 3 Complainant is an Ex-serviceman who has started a Unit for manufacturing house hold electronic products under KVTIR EGP scheme for his livelihood as self employment `The complainant alleges that he has applied for renewal of certificate of registration on 12.2.07. In spite of repeated reminders and personal enquiries renewal was delayed. But thereafter on 9.7.073rd opposite arty informed the complainant to resubmit the renewal application. This renewal application submitted in prescribed format. The certificate of registration was renewed only on 29.12.08. Ext.A1 is the certificate of registration. Ex.A2 reveals that the complainant applied for extending the validity of registration on 12.2.07. Ext.A3 is the letter of requ8est to submit the renewal application. Opposite parties 1 to 4 contended that the allegation of the complainant that a newel application for registration was submitted by him on 12.2.07 along with necessary document is untrue. It is also contended that the allegation of the complainant that the registration was delayed is untrue. The specific case of the opposite party is that the complainant applied for renewal of registration on 14.2.07 to 3rd opposite party. Since the said application was not in proper form and the complaint did not comply the statutory requirements. He was informed to comply the statutory requirements by letter dt.9.7.07. Opposite parties further contended that complainant complied the statutory requirements only after the letter of 9.7.07. Hence the case of 3rd opposite party is that he was able to proceed only when complainant complied with the statutory requirements. 3rd opposite party contended further that as per the statute before issuing the registration renewal certificate the current working status of the unit and commencement of productions are to be ensured by a physical verification and inspection by an authorized person. The said report was received by opposite party on 26.12.08 and the renewal certificate issued on 29.12.2008. It can be seen that Ext.A3 letter sent by 3rd opposite party requested complainant to submit the renewal application in the prescribed format with the recommendation of the financing branch. Complainant admitted that he has submitted application after Ext.A3 letter. If that be so the first application submitted by complaint for renewal was only an improper application. Complaint has not given any details regarding the statutory requirements necessary to issue renewal certificate. Complainant has not given any explanation to the contention of opposite party with respect to the physical inspection and obtaining report on its basis. The contention of opposite party on that aspect if accepted there is no question of inordinate delay in issuing the certificate in legal point of view. Of course the moral and social obligation on the part of opposite party to assist and encourage cannot be ignored, though not, considered at this juncture. The authorities should take in to account that aspect with creative spirit of a welfare state. That should reflect in the dealing of the application of complainant to provide grant under PROAFI for packing and advertising the products in case complainant complies the necessary requirements without any prejudice. In the cross examination complainant deposed “sskäv C³kvs]-£³ \S¯n am{Xta d\-yq-h Xcn-I-bp-f-f. At]-£-tbm-sSm-¸TAdditionalfee bpsS UnUn \ÂIn-bn-cp-¶n-Ã.Additional DD sImSp-¯-Xn-\p-ti-j-amWv renewal certificate issue sNbvX-Xv. At]-£-tbm-sSm-¸T UnUn Cà F¶p ImWn¨v O.P letterAb-¨n-cp-¶p. AXn-\p-ti-j-amWv UnUn-F-Sp-¯v-A-b-¨-Xv. taf-bnÂ]-s¦-Sp-¡m³ ]e-t¸m-gpT £WT In«n-bn-cp-¶p. In«nb ka-b-s¯ms¡ A¯-cT taf-I-fn ]s¦-Sp-¯n-«p-v. F\n-¡v]-s¦-Sp-¡m³- A-h-k-cT thW-sa¶p ]dªv BÀ¡pT At]-£-sIm-Sp-¯n-«n-Ã. Renewal certificate CÃm-¯-Xp-sImv taf-bn ]s¦-Sp-¡m³ km[n-¡nà F¶p ]d-ªv-Hcp kT-Lm-S-I-cpT F\n-¡v-F-gp-Xn-bn-«n-Ã.It is clearly revealed from the above deposition that the complainant submitted application in proper form after the letter of opposite party. The allegation that he could not attend the Mela due to the absence of renewal certificate is not sustainable. It is admitted that he was not prevented by any body from attending the Mela on that ground. More over it is an admitted fact that complainant has not applied before any authority for an opportunity to participate any such Mela. Hence complainant failed to prove that he has sustained any loss since he was not having renewal certificate. Complainant could not succeed to give convincing evidence to prove the actual loss and difficulties that he has suffered because of the reason for non renewal of certificate. What he has deposed in cross examination regarding the grand under PRODIP for packing and advertising the products also reveals that grant was not allowed due to any deficiency on the part of opposite parties. He has deposed in his cross examination that \yq-UÂln BØm-\-am-bn-«p-ff Khadi and Village Industry Commission BWv Cu scheme \S-¸n-em-¡p-¶-Xv. Fsâ And-hn PRODIP grant BÀ¡pT In«n-bn-«nà F¶mWv Rm³ a\-Ên-em-¡n-b-Xv. At]-£-bpsS merit t\m¡n-bmWv grant A\p-h-Zn-¡p-I.Khadi and village Industry  register sNbvX Fevem-hÀ¡pT Cu grant In«-W-sa-¶n-Ã.” Apart from the contention of opposite party that there is no such application from complainant the evidence of complainant shows that complainant has to prove first of all his eligibility on merit basis for getting the grant. This eligibility on merit if not proved it is not possible to jump into a conclusion that complainant is denied to get the grant due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In toto complainant is not succeeded to establish his case with support of cogent and convincing evidence. Thus we are of opinion that complainant is not entitled for any remedy. The issues 1 to 3 are found against complainant. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- President Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of registration issued by Khadi & Village Industries Commission A2.Copy of the letter of renewal of validity of registration dt.12.2.07 A3.Copy of the letter issued by 3rd OP dt.9.7.07 A4.Copyof letter sent to OP dt.19.7.07. A5.copyof letter sent to OP dt.9.8.08. A6.Copy of letter of reminder dt. 23.8.08. Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
