PER:
Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is a farmer and having specialization in Pig Farming being a certified specialized Pig Farmer which he has attended after getting through tough training at Krishi vigyan Kendre, Booh, Tarn Taran. Being specialized in the line he wanted to establish one Pig Farm at his above mentioned address in the open vicinity available with him and for establishing it required a total sum of Rs. 8 Lakh and wanted to arrange it by borrowing it from opposite parties. As per loan scheme in similar projects, the Punjab Govt. Animal Husbandry & Veterinary) was to provide the loan through Punjab Gramin Vikas Bank to Pig Farmer of 25% subsidy from Punjab government (Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department). All these processing formalities to be fulfilled or performed by the opposite parties joint fully. With the consent of complainant, which was fully complied. Opposite parties failed to deposit the subsidy amount of Rs. 2 Lakh in the loan account of the complainant even after lapse of one year. Whereas the complainant deposited the rest of the loan amount in the loan account of Bank. The complainant approached the opposite parties to deposit subsidy amount in the loan account of the complainant. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the government had issued new directions for shifting the pig farm due to health reasons. So complying with the directions the complainant had to shift his farm to distance of more than half kilometer from its original location. For this reason the complainant compensated by the Government (Animal Husbandry Department). The directions of Government were not followed by the opposite parties. The complainant had been left high and dry. The complainant is consumer of the opposite parties as he had availed a loan of Rs. 5,20,000/- from these parties as per the Government plan and scheme and the complainant had been paying interest and repaying the installments to these parties or this loan. Earlier the complainant has filed a complaint No. 26/2023 title Kulwant Singh Vs Punjab Gramin Bank in this Commission and there was some technical defect in framing the complaint and same was withdrawn by the complainant from this commission with permission to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action and accordingly on 27.3.2024, permission was granted by this commission to withdraw the complaint with permission to file fresh complaint after removing the defect. The complainant has prayed the following relieves:-
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed to release the subsidy amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant immediately.
- An amount of Rs. 25,000/- as litigation charges and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant at the hands of the opposite parties, on account of short come, deficient and negligent service may also be awarded to the complainant, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of training certificate Ex. C-2, self attested copy of Government Policy and Plan Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of application form Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of approval certificate Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of fitness certificate of the animals Ex. C-6, self attested copy of letter dated 21.12.2022 Ex. C-7, Self attested copy of Adhar Card of complainant Ex. C-8, Self attested copy of the application dated 14.12.2022 Ex. C-9, Self attested copy of applications dated 1.12.2022 Ex. C-10.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed on this score. The present complaint does not fall under the purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant has not come before this commission and has concealed material facts and has approached this commission with malafide intention. The complainant is guilty of his own wrongs and omissions and conduct and no cause of action is available to the complainant in the present complaint as alleged by him. The project scheme for piggery unit was launched under RKVY performa and was operational under national livestock mission EDEG component under NABARD at the time of application of loan case by complainant. At the time of application of complainant on 13.12.2019, the authority concerned was NABARD (NLM-EDEG component) and not OP-3 as RKVY scheme was no more operational and NABARD is duly mentioned on the application form (Ex. OP3-1) Photostat copy of application form of complainant as per record of OP-3) OP-3 was only concerned with old RKVY scheme, which had ceased to exist, and not for NABARD. Further, OP-3 has not been verifying or processing any application for the said pig-farming scheme under RKVY scheme since 2019 and the authority has been duly shifted with NABARD for the for the said scheme under NLM-EDEG component. The OP-3 has not issued any sanction letter or approval letter for application of the complainant under any scheme to any bank or the complainant. Vide NABARD circular Number 241/DoR-65/2018 and 205/DOR-58/2019 (Ex. OP-3/2 and OP-3/3 photocopies of the NABARD circulars) Administrative approval for implementation of centrally sponsored scheme- Natinal livestock Mission- EDED component year 2018-19, 2019-20, the applications were to be processed under NABARD by the lender bank and not under RKVY scheme. Any application not satisfying the above requisites was not sanctioned and were bound to be rejected for subsidy claim. In light of non-compliance of requisites by the complainant, the application was neither received or approved, forwarded or sanctioned by OP-3. In response to the letters from OP-2, it was communicated by OP-3 that complainant’s case was to be appraised and processed under NABARD national Livestock Mission-EDEG component scheme (Ex. OP-3/4 and Ex. OP3/5 photocopies of reply of OP-3 to OP-2). It was communicated that nowhere on the form OP-3 made a commitment to provide or arrange subsidy to the complainant. It was also informed that OP-2 never presented the case of complainant to OP-3 for verification of his pig farm. It is beyond the scope of and authority of the OP-3 to authorize any subsidy amount in complainant’s loan account since OP-3 is not the governing body of the above said NABARD NLM-EDEG component scheme. The complainant is abusing the process of law and it is nothing but a case of misjoinder and frivolity. The opposite party No. 3 has duly informed the complainant’s bank (OP-2) that his application for subsidy is beyond the scope and authority of OP-3 (Ex. OP-3/4 and Ex. OP3/5 photocopies of reply of OP-3 to OP-2). The complainant has earlier filed one complaint before this commission but the same was withdrawn citing a technical defect. However, the present complaint is beyond the scope of the subject matter jurisdiction of this Commission. The opposite party No. 3 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 3 has placed on record Photocopy of the application form of the complainant as per record of OP-3 Ex. OP-3/1, NABARD circular number 241/DoR-65/2018 Ex. OP-3/2, NABARD circular number 205/DoR/2019 Ex. OP-3/3, Photocopy of reply of OP-3 to OP-2 dated 21.12.2022 Ex. OP-3/4, Photocopy of reply of OP-3 to OP-2 dated 13.1.2023 Ex. OP-3/5, Affidavit of Munish Kumar Gupta Ex. OP3/6.
3 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 but no one appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2, consequently, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.
4 We have carefully gone through the record and heard Ld. counsel for complainant and opposite party No. 3.
5 Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is farmer and having specialization in Pig Farming being a certified specialized Pig Farmer which he has attended after getting through tough training at Krishi vigyan Kendre, Booh, Tarn Taran. He further contended for establishing one pig farm for which a total sum of Rs. 8 Lakh was required and for the same this amount was to be arranged by borrowing from the opposite party. As per loan scheme in similar projects, the Punjab Govt. Animal Husbandry & Veterinary) was to provide the loan through Punjab Gramin Vikas Bank to Pig Farmer of 25% subsidy from Punjab government (Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department). All these processing formalities to be fulfilled or performed by the opposite parties joint fully. With the consent of complainant, which was fully complied. Opposite parties failed to deposit the subsidy amount of Rs. 2 Lakh in the loan account of the complainant even after lapse of one year. Whereas the complainant deposited the rest of the loan amount in the loan account of Bank. The complainant approached the opposite parties to deposit subsidy amount in the loan account of the complainant. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the government had issued new directions for shifting the pig farm due to health reasons. So complying with the directions the complainant had to shift his farm to distance of more than half kilometer from its original location. For this reason the complainant compensated by the Government (Animal Husbandry Department). The directions of Government were not followed by the opposite parties. The complainant had been left high and dry. The complainant is consumer of the opposite parties as he had availed a loan of Rs. 5,20,000/- from these parties as per the Government plan and scheme and the complainant had been paying interest and repaying the installments to these parties or this loan. Earlier the complainant has filed a complaint No. 26/2023 title Kulwant Singh Vs Punjab Gramin Bank in this Commission and there was some technical defect in framing the complaint and same was withdrawn by the complainant from this commission with permission to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action and accordingly on 27.3.2024, permission was granted by this commission to withdraw the complaint with permission to file fresh complaint after removing the defect and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
6 Opposite party No. 3 contended that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed on this score. The present complaint does not fall under the purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant has not come before this commission and has concealed material facts and has approached this commission with malafide intention. The complainant is guilty of his own wrongs and omissions and conduct and no cause of action is available to the complainant in the present complaint as alleged by him. The project scheme for piggery unit was launched under RKVY performa and was operational under national livestock mission EDEG component under NABARD at the time of application of loan case by complainant. At the time of application of complainant on 13.12.2019, the authority concerned was NABARD (NLM-EDEG component) and not OP-3 as RKVY scheme was no more operational and NABARD is duly mentioned on the application form (Ex. OP3-1) Photostat copy of application form of complainant as per record of OP-3) OP-3 was only concerned with old RKVY scheme, which had ceased to exist, and not for NABARD. Further, OP-3 has not been verifying or processing any application for the said pig-farming scheme under RKVY scheme since 2019 and the authority has been duly shifted with NABARD for the for the said scheme under NLM-EDEG component. The OP-3 has not issued any sanction letter or approval letter for application of the complainant under any scheme to any bank or the complainant. Vide NABARD circular Number 241/DoR-65/2018 and 205/DOR-58/2019 (Ex. OP-3/2 and OP-3/3 photocopies of the NABARD circulars) Administrative approval for implementation of centrally sponsored scheme- Natinal livestock Mission- EDED component year 2018-19, 2019-20, the applications were to be processed under NABARD by the lender bank and not under RKVY scheme. Any application not satisfying the above requisites was not sanctioned and were bound to be rejected for subsidy claim. In light of non-compliance of requisites by the complainant, the application was neither received or approved, forwarded or sanctioned by OP-3. In response to the letters from OP-2, it was communicated by OP-3 that complainant’s case was to be appraised and processed under NABARD national Livestock Mission-EDEG component scheme (Ex. OP-3/4 and Ex. OP3/5 photocopies of reply of OP-3 to OP-2). It was communicated that nowhere on the form OP-3 made a commitment to provide or arrange subsidy to the complainant. It was also informed that OP-2 never presented the case of complainant to OP-3 for verification of his pig farm. It is beyond the scope of and authority of the OP-3 to authorize any subsidy amount in complainant’s loan account since OP-3 is not the governing body of the above said NABARD NLM-EDEG component scheme. The complainant is abusing the process of law and it is nothing but a case of misjoinder and frivolity. The opposite party No. 3 has duly informed the complainant’s bank (OP-2) that his application for subsidy is beyond the scope and authority of OP-3 (Ex. OP-3/4 and Ex. OP3/5 photocopies of reply of OP-3 to OP-2). The complainant has earlier filed one complaint before this commission but the same was withdrawn citing a technical defect. However, the present complaint is beyond the scope of the subject matter jurisdiction of this Commission and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.
7 From the combined and harmonious reading of documents and pleadings on record is going to prove that the complainant wanted to established one piggy farm for which he approached the opposite parties No 1 and 2 for availing loan. As such, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 disbursed a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- and as per the scheme there was subsidy of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was not paid by the opposite party for which the complainant approached the opposite party number of times but all in vain. As per OP No. 3 the project scheme for piggery unit was launched under RKVY performa and was operational under National live-stock commission EDEG component under NABARD at the time of application of loan case by the complainant. At the time of application i.e. on 13.12.2019 the authority concerned was NABARD and was not opposite party No. 3, as RKVY scheme was no more operational and NABARD is duly mentioned on the application i.e. OP No. 3/1. The opposite party No. 3 has not issued any sanctioned letter for approval letter for application of the complainant under any scheme to any Bank or the complainant. As such, opposite party No. 3 has denied that they have not received or approved any application for sanction. Further as per the version of opposite party No. 3, it was informed to the complainant that opposite party No. 2 never presented the case of the complainant to opposite party No. 3 for verification of his pig farm.
8 From the perusal of record it shows that as per the opposite party No. 3 the complainant was not entitled under RKVY Scheme, rather, he was entitled for the subsidy under NABARD. The opposite party No. 3 has placed on record application form of complainant which has been duly attested by the Senior Veterinary officer animal Husbandry Tarn Taran and Deputy Director animal Husbandry Tarn Taran and on the top NABARD is mentioned. The opposite party No. 3 has placed on record two letters i.e. Ex. OP3/4 and OP3/5 which is the correspondence between Senior Manager Punjab Gramin Bank Tarn Taran and Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Tarn Taran regarding the subsidy case of S. Kulwant Singh whereby the Deputy Director Animal Husbandry mentioned as follows:-
“With reference to above we wish to inform you that in Dec 2019 subsidy has been provided by the Nabard only as the RKVY scheme has ended. The said case was applied under Nabared scheme on the RKVY old form as it has been clearly mentioned on the top of form by Deputy Director of that time as seen on photo copy of which has been sent by bank to this office. This case was received in the office on 13.12.20119 and was forwarded by this office. Nowhere on the form the department has pledged to provide subsidy as it only verified antecedent of the owner. As per information available from NABARD local incharge in Dec 2019 the subsidy claim from NABARD was to be submitted online by the concerned pig farm from any agency and hence was never recommended for subsidy. ”
From the perusal of this letter, it is clear that to avail the subsidy claim from Nabard the concerned bank has to submit the subsidy claim online and as per the version of Deputy Director the office record of the case of Sh. Kulwant Singh never came up for verification of the concerned Pig Farm from any agency and hence, was never recommended for subsidy. From this letter, it has been become very much clear that the concerned bank i.e. opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have never forwarded the case to the opposite party No. 3 under the concerned scheme for the release of subsidy and in the present complaint, opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have not come forward to contest the case as instead of contesting the case they opted not to appear in this case and they were proceeded against exparte in this case.
9 From the facts and circumstances of the case the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to forward the case of the complainant for the release of subsidy to the opposite party No. 3 under NABARD/Prevedant scheme within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, the opposite party No. 3 is directed to release the subsidy claim of the complainant within further one month in the interest of justice, failing which subsidy claim amount of the complainant will be liability of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within stipulated period as mentioned above, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the subsidy amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission
23.10.2024
