Final Order/Judgment
The complt’s case as culled out from his filed complaint is that the complt. is a customer a of P.N.B, Jamna Branch ,having a loan A/C no 199600SK00000089, IFSC Code PUNB0199600. The complt. had filed an application for granting him loan from the D.I.C of this district. Later on firstly on 04.08.2014 and thereafter on 18.08.2014the complt. has appeared before the D.I.C Paschim Medinipur office for screening at P.M.E.G.P of 2014-2015. Thereafter on 18.03.2015 the complt. went to the Jamna Branch of PNB where the then concerned Manager supplied him a copy of format for sponsoring the beneficiary of undergoing E.D.P, training under P.M.E.G.P and on that day concerned Manager of the of the O.P. no 1 of Jamna Branch handed over the complt. a letter of sanction reflecting granting of Govt. margin money /subsidy of Rs- 50,000/-(Fifty Thousand).
This is complt’s case further that the concerned Manager of the PNB i.e. O.P. no 1took the sale deed of the complt. vide no 6918 of 2013, his educational qualification’s certificate as security and assured the complt. that the complt. would get 25% of the subsidy for starting his business .The complt. was imparted training from 02.05.2015 to 20/05/2015 at R.D.S.E at Paschim Medinipur and was given a certificate by the State Director of O.C.K.V.I, Kolkata.
This is forthcoming from the complaint that the O.P. no 1 deposited Rs- 1,51,510/- in the above referred loan A/C of the complt. maintained at the O.P. no 1’s branch, Pingla, Paschim Medinipur and it is the specific assertion of the complt. that he had regularly paid up his installment but inspite of his repeated requests ,the O.P. no 1 had not made payment of his subsidy amount , as yet they didn’t show any interest over that issue and finally in 2018, the then Branch Manager of the O.P. no 1 expressed his opinion that the complt. wouldn’t be given that subsidy amount from the O.P. no 1 PNB’s concerned Jamna Branch .
The complainant submits on his contacting Khadi Bhavan ,he could come to know from there that since no claim for subsidy has been sent in the name of complainant, so the complt’s subsidy has returned . The complt. referred this matter to the then Manager of the O.P. no 1, by letter dt. 16.11.2018 and in the form of the complaints dt. 20.03.2019 and 20.06.2019 by regd. post and the same were received by the O.P. no 1 of this complaint, but of no avail.
Contd…3
-3-
This is the complt. case that on 25.10.2019,the complt. has paid Rs 4200/- against his loan A/C and on calculation made by the then Manager of the O.P. no 1,the complt. was informed that his original documents will be returned to him by the O.P. no1 after final calculation. It is the complt’s contention that on 30.10.2019 after his making payment of residuals dues of Rs 42/-, he was given back those of his documents against proper receipt and thereafter on 05.11.2019 his loan A/C with the O.P. no 1 was closed and on 29.11.2019 the O.P. no 1 issued a clearance certificate with original signature of the then Manager of the O.P. no 1and bank seal and it is the complt’s assertion that nothing as bank loan is due from the complainant , but he was not returned the subsidy amount by the O.P. no 1 as yet and all his request’s had not been given positive response by the O.P. no 1.
Finding no other alternative, the complainant has filed this complaint case and prays for relief against the O.P. no 1, so stated in the prayer portion of his filed instant complaint petition.
The case record reveals that all the O.P’s of this case were duly summoned to appear and contest and the available Postal Track Reports authenticate the same .The O.P. no 1 turned up and filed Vokalatnama and on two occasions dt. 17.02.2020 and 12.03.2020 had sought for adjournments for filing W.V. but finally never turned up to file W.V and finally this complaint case is fixed for exparte hearing.
The case record reveals that the complt. has filed written examination in chief on affidavit and relevant document namely the letter sent by the G.M District Industries Centre dt. 04.08.2012 vide Memo no 306(36) P.M.E.G.P 2014-2015 asking the complainant to appear before the concerned committee D.I.C, Paschim Medinipur on 18.08.2014 at 11.00 AM for screening P.M.E.G.P 2014-2015 application , format for sponsoring the beneficiary for undergoing for E.D.P training under P.M.E.G.P, letter of sanction dt. 18.03.2015 addressed by the O.P. no 1 to the complt. in respect of his application dt. 18.06.2014 for loan of Rs Two lack under the P.M.E.G.P. scheme, certificate granted to the complt. by the office of the Commission Khadi & Village industries Ministry of M.S.M.E, Govt. of India, certificate issued to the complt. by the appropriate authority of Allahabad Bank dt. 29.11.2019 for the complt’s successfully completing the training on Entrepreneurship Development Programme under P.M.E.G.P.
Complt. has also filed Xerox copy of his latter dt. 16.11.2018 addressed to the O.P. no 1 for return of his deed & certificate with further prayer for granting him his subsidy amount
Contd...4
-4-
with reminders of the same issued from his end on 29.03.2019 and 20.06.2019, his bank passbook with O.P. no 1, statement of loan account , O.P’s issued clearance certificate about his loan dt. 29.11.2019, and final prayer given by him to the O.P. no 1 dt. 14.12.2019, seeking refund of Rs 50,000/- due to him, in his favour.
On the basis of the available material on record the following issues/points for determination are framed for discussion & to reach the decisive conclusion.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
1. Is this complainant a consumer as per C.P Act of 1986?
- Whether this Commission has Jurisdiction to deal/try with this complaint?
- Whether there has been deficiency in service rendered on the part of the O.P. towards the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitle to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue No. 1 & 2:-
For the sake of convenience and brevity, I take up both these two issues for discussion, at a time. The materials on record, examination in chief on affidavit of the complainant and the basic points or bone of contention of this complaint, lend cogent ground to hold that the complainant was the consumer of the O.P. no 1of this complaint case ,having regard to the ambit, extent and scope of the C.P Act of 1986.
Since the O.P’s and the complainant have been carrying on business ,work for gain and reside respectively here within the territorial jurisdiction of this D.C.D.R.C, Paschim Medinipur , I find that this D.C.D.R.C has territorial jurisdiction to deal with this case.
The nature of the complaint, compensation claimed by the complt. in this complaint case also lend convincing and legitimate ground to hold that this D.C.D.R.C has pecuniary jurisdiction too to deal with this complaint case.
Besides having regard to the factual aspect of the complaint case, continuation of the cause of action and the date of filing of the complaint case and in the absence of anything challenged on this score by the O.P., I find this complaint case is filed well within the limitation period, stipulated as per C.P. Act of 1986.
Contd….5
-5-
Accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of the complainant and are thus disposed of exparte against the O.P’s.
Issue No. 3 & 4:-
I now take up these remaining two issues for discussion for the sake of convenience, to avoid prolixity and also for the ground that the same are inter related to each other.
This is the specific contention of the complainant, that the O.P. no 1 of this complaint case was duty bound to refund the subsidy of Rs 50,000/- towards the complt., specially when the same was government subsidy money /margin money and as the beneficiary of the same, for undergoing the training of Entrepreneurship Development Programme under P.M.E.G.P successfully the complt. is entitled to get the benefit of the save subsidy money or Govt. Margin Money.
Besides the complt., as the case record, Xerox copy of statement of the complt’s loan A/C maintained by the O.P. no 1 of this complaint case reveals, had repaid the entire loan amount due from him by the O.P. no 1, as the representative of the O.P. no 1 duly acknowledges the same by putting his signature and official seal of the O.P. no 1, in the relevant documents dt. 29.11.2019, so furnished by the complt. during the course of submission from his end .The documents as referred in this judgment and the sanction letter supports the complt. case, in the absence of any material of the O.P. side to discard the same .
The Xerox copy of the documents filed from the complt’s end, as referred in the contents of this judgment, his ex-in-chief support the complt’s case, in the absence of any cogent evidence of any form from the end of the O.P. side, specially the O.P no 1. The O.P. no 1 couldn’t substantial anything ,sustainable in the eye of law, to justify that the complt. is not entitled to get the subsidy amount of Rs 50,000/- which is Govt. margin money specially when admittedly the complaint had repaid his entire loan of Rs 1,50,000/- due from him towards the O.P. no 1 and when the complt. had successfully undergone E.D.P training under P.M.E.G.P, for running his own endeavour.
Accordingly I find that there was deficiency in service rendered by the O.P. no 1 of this complaint case towards the complt. , as per scopes of the C.P Act of 1986 and the complt is entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for.
Accordingly, both the issues are thus decided in favour of the complt. and are thus disposed of, exparte. Contd…6
-6-
This appears that no specific relief in sought for against the remaining O.P’s no 2 & 3, in this complaint case and reliefs are sought for against the O.P. no 1 .However, this must be taken into consideration that since the O.P’s no 2&3 didn’t turn up to contest, even being duly summoned in this complaint case, so this complt. case is decided exparte against all the three O.P’s of this case.
Having regard to the nature & quantum of the relief sought no fees have been paid up by the complt.
Hence it is…
ORDERED
That the instant complaint case be and the same is allowed exparte against the O.P’s of this complaint case. The complaint is entitled to get litigation cost of Rs 20,000/-(Twenty Thousand) only from the O.P. no 1 of this complaint .The complt. is entitled to get refund of Rs- Fifty Thousand only as subsidy amount from the O.P. no 1 of this complaint.
The complaint is also entitled to get Rs 1,50,000/-(One lakh Fifty Thousand) as compensation from the O.P. no 1 of this complaint case for causing him inconvenience and harassment by inflection of deficiency of service.
The O.P. no1 of this complaint case, shall strictly comply this order within Forty Two (42) days from the date of this order.
Accordingly, O.P. no 1 is directed to pay of Rs 20,000+50,000+1,50,000=in total Rs- 2,20,000/-(Two lakh Twenty Thousand) only towards the complt. within Forty Two days (42 days) from the date of this order, by issuing A/C payee cheque in the name of the complainant, failing which the said amount will carry interest @9% P.A from the date of filing of this case till realisation of the same from the O.P. no 1.
The complt. is at liberty to put this order into execution, according to law, for non compliance of this order and for realisation of the sum ordered in his favour, against the O.P. no1 of this complaint case. Let there be free service of the copies of this judgment on the parties, free of cost against receipts and it the same is not collected let the same be sent by post to the addressee of the parties, free of cost.
