DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.613 of 18-12-2012

Decided on 22-03-2013

Iqbal Singh aged about 45 years S/o Gulab Singh R/o Vill.Bajak, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Primary Coop Agr. Development Bank Bathinda, through its Manager.

2.The Punjab State Cop Agriculture Development Bank ltd Sec 17-B, Bank Square, SCO 53-54, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

3.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) Plot No.3, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through General Manager.

.......Opposite parties

CC.No.628 of 27-12-2012

Decided on 22-03-2013

Jatinder Singh @ Jeetinder Singh aged about 30 years R/o Vill.Sivian, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. Primary Coop Agr. Development Bank Bathinda, through its Manager.

2.The Punjab State Cop Agriculture Development Bank ltd Sec 17-B, Bank Square, SCO 53-54, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

3.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) Plot No.3, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through General Manager.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainants: Sh.K.K Sharma, counsel for complainants.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Hargurjit Singh, counsel for opposite party Nos.1 & 2.

Sh.Sukhdev Mittal, counsel for opposite party No.3.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). This order disposes of 2 complaints vide CC.No.613 of 18-12-2012 titled Iqbal Singh Vs. Primary Coop Agr. Development Bank and CC.No.628 of 27-12-2012 titled Jatinder Singh Vs. Primary Coop Agr. Development Bank as the opposite parties are same and the matter in dispute is same in the above mentioned complaints. Even learned counsel of the complainants is same and the learned counsel of the opposite parties are also same. The brief facts of the complaints are that the complainants applied for grant of the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for the construction of rural godowns to the opposite party No. under the scheme for construction/renovation of the rural godowns and warehouses for the storage of their produce vide circular No.92/ICD-20/2002-03 dated 12.4.2002. This scheme has been framed by the opposite party No.3 and circulated in all the agriculture development banks, societies and other establishments and also advertised its policy for the construction of the godowns on subsidy basis in the newspaper and pamphlets. This scheme was regarding the construction of the godowns as per the specifications supplied by the NABARD through the Bank and the first installment of loan was disbursed to the complainants on 4.3.2003 in CC.No.613 of 18-12-2012 and 7.3.2003 in CC.No.628 of 27-12-2012. The complainants are paying the installments of the loan and the subsidy amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be payable by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is to be adjusted in their last installment. The complainants complied with all the conditions of the loan, constructed the rural godown as per the specifications and repaid installments in time and this is quite eligible for the subsidy. The complainants have learnt that the opposite party No.1 had not sent their cases for subsidy to the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and the opposite party No.1 is threatening to recover this amount from the complainants against the law and facts for which it has no right and it cannot take benefit of its own wrongs. The complainants approached the opposite parties time and again to release the subsidy and settle the loan account but nothing have been done and they have refused to do anything. Hence the complainants have filed the present complaints to seek the directions to the opposite parties to produce the entire loan case file regarding the subsidy alongwith circular No.92/ICD-20/2002-03 dated 12.4.2002; to give details of cases in which the subsidy have been released and to release the subsidy of Rs.50,000/- each in both the complaints alongwith cost and compensation.

2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded on the legal side that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaints as under section 82 (3) of the Punjab Co-op. Societies Act 1961, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum or Civil Court is barred. The complainants have concealed the true facts and have not come with clean hands before this Forum to seek the relief. In fact NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development, Mumbai) framed 'Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for Construction/Renovation Expansion of Rural Godowns' bearing circular No.92/ICD-20/2002-03 dated 2.4.2002, which was to be implemented through the Primary Co-op Agriculture Development Banks and under the said scheme various persons approached the opposite party No.1 for the grant of the said loan and the complainants applied for the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for the construction of the Godown under the Rural Godown Scheme and the said scheme was to be sponsored by NABARD as per circular No.92/ICD-20/2002-03 dated 1.4.2002 and accordingly the rules were framed and the specifications were also framed. According to the said scheme the limit for the completion of the project was prescribed was 15 months and if there are justified reasons, a further grace period of 3 months was to be allowed, by the participating Bank. If the said project is not completed within the stipulated period, the benefit of the subsidy shall not be available and the advance subsidy has to be refunded forthwith. According to the said scheme the project was completed within the specified period and a completion certificate duly issued by the Architect was to be submitted. Accordingly the said completion certificate was submitted by the opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.3 regarding the completion of the project. All the cases were sent by the opposite party No.1 to NABARD and for consideration of all the cases a joint inspection committee was constituted who submitted its report. There were three members in the said Joint Inspection Committee i.e. (I) Vikas Mittal Manager, NABARD, Chandigarh, (ii) Harbans Singh Manager PADB Bathinda (iii) Shri S.K Koul, M.D. D.M.I Chandigarh. This committee recommended release of the final installment of the subsidy in CC No.613 of 18.12.2012 on dated 25.7.2006 and not released the subsidy in case of Jatinder Singh @ Jeetinder Singh but in CC No.613 of 18.12.2012 after the recommendation by the said Joint Committee, NABARD, did not release the second installment of subsidy, although the first installment of subsidy was released. After that the opposite party No.1 wrote letters to the opposite party No.3 and send Annexure-II format for claiming the final installment of subsidy but there was no response. There was no objection raised by NABARD and the case was complete in all respects and the same was duly mentioned in the Annexure as 'Complete' and regarding the same letter No.19 dated 1.11.2006 was also written by the opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.3, which was duly received by the opposite party No.3. Thereafter the opposite party No.1 wrote reminder to the opposite party No.2 i.e. letter No.67-A dated 13.5.2011; memo No.519 dated 29.8.2012 to the opposite party No.2; 520 dated 29.8.2012 to the opposite party No.3 and the opposite party No.2 also wrote letters to the opposite party No.3 i.e. letter No.2567 dated 24.5.2008; letter No.15244 dated 28 March, 2012, letter No.SADB/DEV/5798 dated 31.8.2012 to get the second installment of the subsidy released but the opposite party No.3 did not respond to the said letters, reminders and memos. Thus there is no lapse or negligence on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

3. The opposite party No.3 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that it was established by an Act of Parliament (The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981) for providing the credit for promotion of agriculture, small scale cottage and village industries, handicrafts and other rural crafts and other allied activities in the rural areas, with a view to promoting integrated rural development and securing prosperity of the rural areas and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In the year 2001-02 with a view to providing the farming community with facility for scientific storage of produce so as to avoid wastage and deterioration and also to enable framers to meet their credit requirements without being compelled to sell the produce at a time when the prices are low, the Government of India, introduced the Gramin Bhandaran Yojna, a Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme (CISS) for construction/renovation/expansion of the rural godowns. The Directorate of marketing and inspection, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (here-in-after referred to as MOA and DMI respectively) in the nodal agency for implementing the scheme through the opposite party No.3 and NCDC. The guidelines were circulated by the opposite party No.3 vide its circular No.92/ICD-20/2002-03 dated 12.4.2002 to all the State coop banks, Scheduled commercial banks, SCARDBs etc. including the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 where it was specified that the sanction and release of the subsidy is subject to availability of the funds and adherence to the instructions and guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time in this regard and the banks were further instructed to stipulate the above conditions in the sanction letters issued by them to the borrowers. The opposite party No.3 is merely an agency through which the subsidy of GOI is transmitted. The Government of India formulates scheme and operational guidelines. The opposite parties merely releases the subsidy to the participating banks. Under the scheme, the subsidy is linked to institutional credit and is released through the opposite party No.3 for projects financed by the scheduled commercial banks, cooperative and regional rural Banks and other institutions eligible for refinance from the opposite party No.3. The scheme and guidelines is subject to changes in accordance with the modification, addition, deletion or any of the terms & conditions by the Government of India issued from time to time. The opposite party No.3 further issued circular No.179/ICD 36/2008 dated 30.9.2008 forwarding the revised Operational guidelines as issued by Government of India vide their letter No.19011/2/2007-M-II) (Vol.II) dated 28.7.2008, as applicable, for administration of the subsidy in respect of the scheme w.e.f. 26 June 2008 which inter alia stated in para No.3 (XV) that the sanction of the projects in a State would be restricted to a maximum of 18 lacs MT (i.e. 20% of the total capacity of 90 lacs MT envisaged during XI Plan). In the terms of the scheme, Department of Agriculture and Coop.Government of India, will release subsidy to the opposite party No.3 in advance. Accordingly, the opposite party No.3 would release the subsidy to the participating banks in advance for keeping the same in the Subsidy Reserve Account of the concerned borrower, to be adjusted finally against the loan amount on the completion of the project. The procedure for release of advance subsidy is that the bank sanctioning the loan has to submit the claim for advance subsidy in the prescribed format alongwith project profile and other documents, 50% of the subsidy is released as advance subsidy to the banks for projects complying with guidelines. Subject to the condition of the completion of the project as per the guidelines, the representative of DMI, the opposite party No.3 and Bank conduct a joint inspection on the completion of the godown to verify that the conditions stipulated to the scheme and its guidelines are adhered to or not. At this stage, the balance 50% of the subsidy is released on recommendation of the joint inspection team if the godown is constructed as per the said requirements, otherwise the advance subsidy is recalled and no subsidy is granted. The opposite party No.3 further pleaded that these complaints are not maintainable as there is no consideration and element of service being rendered by NABARD to the complainants within the definition of 'Service' u/s 2(1)(0) of the 'Act'. The reason is that the subsidy given by the Government in the present cases is a free financial assistance for which no charges or fees or consideration is paid by the recipient/beneficiary of subsidy or any other person. The complainants are also not consumers of the opposite party No.3 because it has not rendered any services to the complainants under any circumstances. There is no relationship of 'consumer' and 'service provider' within the meaning of 'Act'. The complainants have failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the said scheme. The complainants were required to complete the construction of the godown within 15+3 months from the date of sanction of loan, but they have failed to do so. The complainants were sanctioned the loan by PADB on 24.2.2003 and 3.3.2003 and the first installment of the loan was released on 4.3.2003 and 7.3.2003 in both complaint respectively and they have completed the project on 30.8.2004 in CC.No.613 of 18-12-2012 and on 28.7.2006 in CC No.628 of 27.12.2012. In CC.No.613 of 18-12-2012. It can be seen from JMI report dated 25.7.2006 that the date of intimation of completion to NABARD is 18.10.2005 in both complaints. Further, through JMI report recommended for release of subsidy it was not considered by the Regional Office as the project was completed in a period of 18 months 6 days in CC No.613 of 18.12.2012 exceeding the stipulated period for construction. In terms in para No.7 of the Government of India Guidelines dated 27.3.2002, the time limit of 15+3 months is prescribed for completion of the project from the date of sanction by the bank. If the project is not completed within this stipulated period, the benefit of subsidy shall not be available and advance subsidy has to be refunded forthwith and accordingly the subsidy was rejected and in CC.No.628 of 27-12-2012 the Joint Inspection Committee has observed that the project was not constructed as per the technical parameters stipulated in the guidelines and not recommended for the release of the final installments of the subsidy. As such the cases for subsidy were rejected by the joint inspection report carried out on 28.7.2006 and the opposite party No.2 was informed on 22.12.2006, 10.1.2007 and so on as well as vide letter No.NB.Pb./ICD-GSP/4669/RG/2012-13 dated 18.10.2012.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. The submission of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 on the legal side is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaints as under section 82 (3) of the Punjab Co-op. Societies Act 1961, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum or Civil Court is barred.

7. The submission of the opposite party No.3 on the legal side is that these complaints are not maintainable as there is no consideration and element of service being rendered by NABARD to the complainants within the definition of 'Service' u/s 2(1)(0) of the 'Act'. The reason is that the subsidy given by the Government in the present cases is a free financial assistance for which no charges or fees or consideration is paid by the recipient/beneficiary of subsidy or any other person. The complainants are also not a consumer of the opposite party No.3. The complainants are neither required to nor have paid any service charges to the opposite party No.3. As such the deal cannot be treated as 'Service' under the provisions of the 'Act'. The complainants are not consumer of the opposite party No.3 within the provisions of S.2(d) of the 'Act' as NABARD has not rendered any services to them under any circumstances. Thus there is no relationship of 'consumer' and 'service provider' within the meaning of 'Act'.

8. To support their version the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have referred to the various authorities.

The complainants to establish themselves as 'Consumer' of the opposite parties have relied upon the various authorities and have taken the support of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Shivraj V.Patil & Mr.D.M Dharmadhikari Vs. M.Lalitha (Dead) through Lrs & Ors in Civil Appeal No.92 of 1998, Decided on 11.12.2003. With utmost regard and humility to the authority relied upon by the learned counsel of the complainant have distinguishable facts and circumstances. As in Shivraj V.Patil & Mr.D.M Dharmadhikari Vs. M.Lalitha (Dead) Through Lrs & Others (Supra), the dispute is between the members and the management of co-operative society whereas the present dispute is relating to the release of subsidy amount by the NABARD through the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to the complainants.

9. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.4894 of 2012, order dated 19.1.2012 in first appeal No.1238/08 in case titled Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. The Rewari Central Co-operative bank & Other has laid down the precedent that:-

“….The principal question is that of grant of subsidy. The order passed by the learned State Commission is supported by authorities, which clearly go to show that the subsidy offered to be paid is not 'service' as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, the petitioner/complainant is not a 'consumer'. The State Commission has referred to the order of this commission reported in Himachal Weavers Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation & Ors., III (1993) CPJ 267 (NC) He has also referred to two authorities of the orders passed by the State Commission. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner/complainant is lame of strength, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed....”

10. Therefore in the light of what has been discussed above the disputes involved are not consumer disputes. Thus these complaints are hereby dismissed and the merits of the complainants are not touched. Before parting with the order it is made clear that the complainants are at liberty to approach the competent authority/forum/court having proper jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievances. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

11. A copy of this order be placed on both the complaints vide CC.No.613 of 18-12-2012 and CC.No.628 of 27-12-2012 and a copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

22-03-2013

Vikramjit Kaur Soni

President

Amarjeet Paul

Member

Sukhwinder Kaur

Member