Complaints filed on: 29-11-2023
Disposed on: 29-11-2024
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
::P R E S E N T::
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com, L.L.M, ….....PRESIDENT
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B. (Spl).,...LADY MEMBER
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 170/2023
Sri. Madhusudhan. S
S/o. Late Shivanna,
aged about 35 years,
R/o. Druva Nilaya, behind
Lakshmiranganaha Cowltry, Gularive,
Gulur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. ……….….Complainant
(Smt.Navya B. Advocate.,)
V/s
The Manager,
Karnataka Bank Ltd,
Vinobha Nagar Branch,
Tumakuru District…… ……….. Opposite Party
(Sri. M.C.Prabhu, Advocate)
::O R D E R ::
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, LADY MEMBER
This complaint filed by the complainant Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (herein after called as OP) to direct the OP to pay the subsidy amount of Rs.2,81,760-00 with interest and to pay the compensation of Rs.4,00,000-00 to the complainant towards the mental agony caused to the complainant.
2. It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant is the beneficiary of Housing Loan under Pradhana Mantri Awas Yojana (herein after called as PMAY) Scheme and the complainant has approached OP for sanction of loan under the said scheme. After submission of application with relevant documents, the OP has obliged to sanction loan under the said scheme and then the complainant has executed mortgage deed with OP. At the time of mortgaging the property the OP has told that subsidy will be given later after getting the same from the concerned department under PMAY CLSS. After waiting, the complainant written an application with the OP, seeking extend the benefits of subsidy. But the OP has issued a reply to the representation on 09/12/2022 stating that the complainant has not constructed the house in urban area and he is not entitled for the said benefit. The OP has not enlarged the benefits of subsidy to the complainant even though the housing loan has been sanctioned under the PMAY scheme. OP has completely neglected the complainant and not moved application for getting subsidy from the concerned department. Though the complainant issued legal notice to the OP on 23/09/2023, the OP has not complied with said notice nor replied. Hence this complaint.
3. After issuing of notice by this Commission, the OP has appeared before this Commission through their counsel and filed version.
4. In the version, the OP has denied the all allegation made by the complainant as false and submitted that the complainant has approached the OP for sanction of housing loan under PMAY scheme, even though he was not eligible for obtained loan under the said scheme. But with a condition that the complainant has not eligible to get only subsidy under the said scheme, the OP bank has sanctioned the loan. As per PMAY guidelines the complainant is not eligible for obtaining the subsidy amount because he has constructed his house within the rural limits nor within the urban limits. Further submitted that the PMAY Scheme is applicable only for the construction of ground floor and not first floor or duplex house. But complainant has constructed ground floor and first floor house at Gulaharive Village and on these grounds the complainant has not eligible to get subsidy under the PMAY scheme. Hence OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence with 10 (ten) documents. Which are marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10. One Shri Prakash Naik S/o. S.Subbaraya Naik of OP has filed his affidavit evidence.
6. The OP has filed some documents with written argument. We have heard the arguments of both counsels with their respective written arguments and peruse the evidence, documents and points would arise for determination as follows:-
- Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of OP?
- Is complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1 In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the below
:R E A S O N S:
Point No.1&2:-
8. The counsel for the complainant has argued that, the complainant is the beneficiary of Housing Loan under PMAY scheme and the complainant approached the OP for sanction of loan under the said scheme. After filing of the application and submitting relevant documents, the OP has obliged to sanction loan under the said scheme. Then the complainant has executed mortgage deed with OP under home loan account and after sanction of the loan, the complainant has constructed the house in the property. Further counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has waited for subsidy amount of PMAY-CLSS as assured by the OP and the complainant written an application with the OP seeking extend the benefits of subsidy. But the OP has replied on 09/12/2022 as the complainant has not constructed the house in urban area and he is not entitled for the said benefit. Further counsel for the complainant has contended that the OP has extended the benefit of PMAY subsidy to one Shri. Dayananda Kumar V.V.I.D.No.CLS103580357900143 and another Shri.Kiran Kumar N. I.D.No.CLS10568031579000008, who are constructed their houses along with the complainant, under the same scheme and same area. Further counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP has visited the spot and verified that the house is going to be constructed in the village area or urban area and after getting opinion from legal advisor, the bank has sanctioned the loan to the complainant. Further argued that, often and often, bank authority is visiting the spot for inspection of construction and is well known that the complainant is constructing ground floor or first floor and for the OP sanctioned loan of Rs.22,40,000-00 and though the OP is well known about where and how is the house constricting, the OP has now raising the new objection as the house is constructing in not urban area and not only ground floor. Further counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP has totally neglected the complainant and not moved the application of the complainant to get subsidy under PMAY scheme. Which shows the deficiency in service of the OP. To prove his arguments the complainant has produced Ex.C-1/copy of written complaint given to OP, Ex.C-2/copy of reply notice of the OP, Ex.C-3/copy of legal notice issued to the OP, Ex.C-4/copy of the reply notice of the OP, Ex.C-5/RPAD receipt with acknowledgement, Ex.C-6/sanction letter from village Panchayath Office, Ex.C-7/copy of Layout plan, Ex.C-8/documents of another two persons who get PMAY subsidy. Ex.C-9/certified copy of Adhar card of the complainant, Ex.C-10/copy of sanction letter pertaining to the complainant.
9. Per contra the counsel for the OP has argued that the OP has sanctioned the home loan of Rs.22,40,000-00 on 19/01/2021, with a condition/informing the complainant that he has not eligible to get any subsidy under PMAY scheme. The complainant only comes under low income group. Some of the conditions specified for sanctioning the loan under PMAY Scheme. Further counsel for OP has contended that the complainant has constructed the house in rural area, not in urban limits and complainant constructed ground floor and first floor. Therefore the complainant is not eligible to get the subsidy under PMAY scheme as per PMAY guidelines. Further counsel for the OP has contended that, when the complainant is not eligible to get subsidy amount from PMAY scheme, the OP has acted as per the PMAY guidelines and OP has not done any deficiency in service. To prove their case the OP has submitted that 1) copy of legal notice issued by the complainant. 2) True copy of reply notice of the OP dated 13-10-2023 3) True copy of postal receipt, 4) True copy of Postal acknowledgement 5)Copy of Mandatory requirement for submission of PMAY-CLSS claim, 7)copy of operational Guidelines, January 2017 (updated) pertaining to PMAY (urban), 8) True copy of In Principle sanction order 9) copy of sanction with terms, conditions and acknowledgment.
10. On perusal of the documents filed by both sides, it is noticed that, the copy of “In Principle sanction order” produced by the OP is reflecting, In Principle sanction date:19-01-2021, Name of applicant and co-applicant, facility Details. Further same copy is reflecting the terms and conditions as, “As per scheme guidelines PMAY conditions: a)This facility is eligible under PMAY scheme subject to fulfillment of all PMAY guidelines. Ex.C-10/copy of sanction produced by the complainant is reflecting specific condition and No.7 in specific condition is explaining as, “In case of Loan covered under PMAY, branch to follow the scheme guidelines as per latest HO guidelines, Refer HO/CREDIT/1CIRCULAR17/1/2018-19 DATED 15-4-2017”. The OP has also produced the same copy of sanction letter with acknowledgement having signature of the complainant/applicant of loan and co-applicant of loan. Acknowledgement is explaining as “I/we acknowledge the receipt of credit sanction intimation and also hereby confirm that the terms and conditions are acceptable to me/us. I/we undertake to furnish all necessary particulars required by the bank as and when called for”. Therefore this copy of sanction letter produced by the OP is establishes that the complainant and his co-applicant were agreed/confirmed the terms and conditions which are explained in the loan sanction letter. Further same copy is establishing that the complainant has signed every page of sanction letter and also agreed and well aware about the 7th point in specific condition mentioned in the loan sanction letter which is explaining about the rule of the bank regarding the PMAY scheme. As per 7th point in specific condition of sanction letter, the bank should be follows the PMAY scheme guidelines as per latest HO guidelines.
11. Further we have gone through the PMAY (urban) operational guidelines, January-2017 (updated), Credit Linked Scheme EWS/LIG (CLSS for EWS/LIG) produced by the OP. Point No.1.0 of PMAY (urban) operational guidelines is explaining about scope and point No.1.1 is explaining as, “Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana(urban)- Housing for All” Mission for urban area is being implemented during 2015-2022 and this Mission will provide central assistance to implementing agencies through states and UTS for providing houses to all eligible families/beneficiaries by 2022”. Further point No.2 of PMAY (urban) operational guidelines is explaining about coverage and duration and point No.2.1 is explaining as, “All statutory Towns as per census 2011 and towns notified subsequently would be eligible for coverage under the mission.
Note: states/UTS will have the flexibility to include in the Mission the planning area as notified s with respect to the statutory town and which surrounds the concerned municipal area”. Therefore it is considered that the PMAY (urban) credit linked subsidy scheme for EWS/LIG is covers the statutory Towns as per census 2011. Ex.C-6 produced by the complainant is establishing that the complainant got licence to build his house from Guluru Gram Panchayath not from any town. Further Ex.10 is showing the mortgaged property is having the same address as Gulaharive Village, Guluru Hobli, and not any town. Ex.9 produced by the complainant is also establishing that the complainant is the resident of Gulaharive village. Further the complainant has not produced any document to establish that he has eligible to get subsidy from PMAY (Gramin/Rural). Further Ex-8, and its annexure are not establishing that one Shri. Dayanand Kumar Y.V. and Shri. Kiran. N were got the PMAY subsidy specifically from the OP. Copy of Principle sanction order and copy of loan sanction letter produced by the OP are establishing that while sanctioning the Home Loan, the OP has informed the complainant that OP have to be follow the guidelines of the PMAY scheme. The complainant also agreed the specific conditions about the PMAY scheme by signing every page of the loan sanction letter. Further format of Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) which is annexure of the PMAY guidelines is explaining the Responsibilities and Obligations of second party (i.e. Bank) in the point-E and point No.2 under ‘E’ is explaining as, “The Lender/Second Party hereby undertakes to implement the scheme as per its terms and conditions”. Therefore we did not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not moving the application of the complainant to get PMAY subsidy by following the guidelines of PMAY (Urban) scheme. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-
::O R D E R::
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed without cost.
Furnish copy of this order to both parties free of costs immediately.
