D.o.F: 27/7/16
D.o.O:28/2/17
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM IDDUKKI
CC.NO.215/16
Dated this, the 28th day of February 2017
PRESENT:
SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI.BENNY.K. : MEMBER
1.Nobil Joseph, Veluthedathukkattil Veedu,
Kudayathur Po, Sankarappalli.
2. Josily Nobil, Veluthedathukkattil Veedu, : Complainants
Kudayathur Po, Sankarappalli
(Adv.K.M.Sanu)
- Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank,
Muttam Branch, Muttam Po. : Opposite parties
- Manager, Dist rict Officer,
NABARD, Dist. Office, Thodupuzha,Po.Thodupuzha.
ORDER
SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR : PRESIDENT
The 1st complainant is the husband of the 2nd complainant. The complainants have availed 2 loans from 1st opposite party bank under Diary Entrepreneurship Development scheme of Central government, for the financial year 2014-15 during 12th 5 year plan . The purpose of the loan was cattle breading and the borrowers are entitled to get 25% of loan subsidy under the above scheme. The loan granted to the 1st complainant is Rs.2,40,000/- and the 2nd complainant is Rs. 1,40,000/- on 7/10/14. Immediately after availing the loan both complainants submitted necessary records for getting subsidy before the 1st opposite party. The officers of the 1st opposite party conducted necessary enquires about the scheme and after satisfying the scheme they sanctioned the loan to the complainants. Even though the complainants submitted applications for getting subsidy immediately after sanctioning the loan the 1st opposite party never acted upon it, So far no subsidy granted and accounted in the respective loans. The complainant further submitted that the act of the opposite parties in non granting of the loan subsidy @25% to each loan, which is legally entitled to get the complainants are sheer deficiency in service and they are liable to compensate the complainants. Hence the complainants filed the complaints for getting the relief such as to direct the opposite parties to sanction 25% subsidy to the loan stated above and also directed the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost.
On the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed version. In their version 1st opposite party contended that the subsidy claim forms were submitted to NABARD on 25/10/14 without any delay, through their Head office at Malappuram. Unfortunately the claim was returned from NABARD on 24/12/14, for the reason that the budget allotted to Kerala , under the said scheme general category for the year 2014-15 has been fully utilized. Though the bank has resubmitted the application on 12/6/15 it was also returned. Further contended that the banks are only providing loan to the eligible persons and the subsidy being declared by the Govt. of India and allocated to the loanee banks through the nodal agency NABARD, the 2nd opposite party . Hence 1st opposite party is not at all responsible for the allegations leveled therein. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice of any sort from the part of this opposite party.
3. 2nd opposite party not entered appearance and filed written version. Hence 2nd opposite party set exparte.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P3 marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of the letter issued by 2nd opposite party dtd 24/12/14. Ext.P2 is the copy of the circular issued by the Govt. of India Department of Animal Husbandary, Dairying and Fisheries dt.8/5/14 Ext.P3 is the copy of pass books of complainants.
From the defense side 1st opposite party produced some documents and considered it as a part of evidence as Exts.R1 to R3. Ext.R1 is the copy of Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme for the financial year 2014-15. Ext.R2 is the copy of forms from the controlling officer of the bank for release of capital subsidy dated 25/10/14 (2 Nos.). Ext.R3 is the copy of letter dtd 6/7/15 issued by the 2nd opposite party to 1st opposite party.
Heard both sides.
We have considered the point of argument from both the parties and gone through the records. It is an admitted fact that the complainants are eligible for the capital subsidy @25% of their respective loans . It is also an admitted that the 1st opposite party forwarded their claim to the 2nd opposite party, the Nodal agency of the Central Government in this matter, properly in time. It is evidenced from Ext.R2 series. By perusing Ext.R3 we can see that, the subsidy claim of the complainants forwarded by the 1st opposite party was returned by the 2nd opposite party stating that budget is not available under general category.
From the above discussions, the Forum finds that the 1st opposite party acted in time for getting the subsidy amount to the complainants. Hence there is no deficiency in service can be alleged against them, since their requests for granting the loan was returned by 2nd opposite party. As a Nodal agency of the Central Government in the matter, 2nd opposite party is liable to sanction the capital subsidy as per Ext.P2 circular. In the mean time 1st opposite party submitted that an amount of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.40,200/- are credited in the loan account of complainants respectively as capital subsidy sanctioned for the 2nd opposite party on 21/2/17.
Hence the complaint is allowed. The Forum directs the 2nd opposite party to sanction the balance capital subsidy amount to the respective loan of the complainants, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the complainants shall initiate appropriate legal steps against the 2nd opposite party to execute the order . No cost or compensation is allowed.
Pronounced in the open forum on this the 28th day of February 2017
Sd/
SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR : PRESIDENT
Sd/
SRI.BENNY.K. : MEMBER
Exts:
P1-copy of the letter issued by 2nd OP
P2-Copy of Circular
P3-copy of pass books
R1-copy of the Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme for the financial year 2014-15
R2-copy of forms for bank release of capital subsidy
R3-copyof letter issued by 2nd Op to 1 st OP
PW1-Nobil Joseph-complainant.
eva /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
