Karnataka

Gadag

CC/88/2017

Basavannevva.M.Budihal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.Dharmayat

31 Aug 2018

ORDER

 O R D E R

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA.C.H., PRESIDENT:

        This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

        2.       The averments of the complaints in brief are:

             The above complaint filed by the complainant, states that she is the owner of Plot No.9 of Chavadi Layout of Gadag, applied for the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojane to construct the house on the said plot. The OP No.3 forwarded the complainant’s application to the OP No.2, with necessary recommendations. The OP No.2 agreed and sanctioned the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- under the above said scheme on 12/02/2015 and the complainant constructed her house on the said plot and also repaid the loan of Rs.70,000/- to the OP No.1. 

          It is further averred by the complainant that, she is entitled for the interest at subsidy rate @ 6.5% on the loan amount, which is paid by the Central Government. The complainant when asked the OP No.2 to credit interest subsidy to her account, but OP No.2, instead of crediting the interest subsidy amount, forced to pay the entire loan, because the loan is sanctioned on regular home loan scheme of the bank. So, the complainant once again submitted all the details of the scheme and letter forwarded by the OP NO.3 to get the benefit of the said scheme. Thereafter OP No.2 replied that due to mistake, home loan is sanctioned under regular scheme of the bank and said that they are helpless to provide the benefit to the complainant. It is further averred that due to the mistake loan is not sanctioned under the said scheme and the account opened with wrong scheme code as TLPHL, instead of TLPHA. It is further averred that the admission of the OP No.2 shows that how negligent he is. As such the complainant got issued legal notice to both the OPs, they kept quiet. Hence the complainant was constrained to file this complaint seeking direction to OP NO.1 & 2 to give benefit of subsidy interest @ 6.5 % on Rs.5,00,000/- and also prayed for awarding compensation  and costs.   

         3.       The Forum registered a case and issued a notice to the OP No.1 & 2 and later on impleaded OP No.3 as necessary party. After service of the notices the OPs appeared through their counsel and the OP No.2 has filed the written version stating that complaint of the complainant is not true and bonafide and it is not tenable in law. The OP No.2 further contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP No.2 admitted the Para NO.2 of the compliant is true that the complainant sought loan from the OPs under the provisions of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojane, she had filed an application under the provisions of Rajeev Rin Yojana. It is further contended that during 2013-14, when the complainant filed loan application, the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana was not in force. It is further submitted that as per the recommendation of Gadag-Betageri City Municipal Council, the Gadag Bank has sanctioned the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for construction of the house under Rajeev Rin Yojana on 12-02-2015.    It is further submitted that, as per the said scheme, the complainant was entitled for the interest subsidy at 6.5% and the local authority i.e., Gadag-Betageri City Municipal Council/Central Government were to pay the subsidy amount and not the OP No.1 & 2.  So the complainant is not the consumer, hence the complaint is not tenable.  The OP No.2 denied para No.6 of the complaint as false. It is further submitted that as per the recommendation of Gadag-Betageri City Municipal Council, Pradhan Mantri Awas Scheme was not in force.   It was not implemented, so the loan was sanctioned to the complainant under Rajeev Rin Yojana. It is further contended that as per the Rules for Rajeev Rin Yojana, the person who is the owner of the plot the area of which is less than 100 meters is entitled for the benefit of subsidy.  As the area of the plot of the complainant is more than 100 meters, she is not legally entitled to claim benefit of subsidy. It is further submitted that under the said scheme, the OP No.2 wrote a letter dated:09-03-2017 to the Gadag-Betageri City Municipal Council, Gadag, demanding subsidy to be paid to the complainant. It is further contended that the OP No.2 also sent utilization certificate to the Gadag-Betageri City Municipal Council, Gadag on 10-04-2017, and requesting payment of subsidy amount. But neither Gadag-Betageri City Municipal Council, Gadag nor Central Government paid the subsidy amount. The OP No.2 also wrote letter to its circle office at Bangalore requesting to claim subsidy amount from the Central Government or concerned authority.  Inspite of so many requests the Government i.e. Gadag-Betageri City Municipal Council, Gadag, nor Central Government paid the subsidy amount. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP NO.1 & 2.    It is further submitted that as per the guidelines of Rajeev Rin Yojana any dispute arising between the bank and borrower the dispute will have to be referred to the sole Arbitrator, appointed by C.M.D.N.H.B under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the decisions of the Sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties and Arbitration proceedings shall be held at Delhi. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. Therefore it is prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4.      The complainant has filed his chief affidavit along with 6 photo copy of the documents. The documents are as follows:

1	Photo copy of the Letter from OP No.3 to OP No2
2	Photo copy of the Letter from Complainant to Op No.2
3	Photo copy  of the Letters 2 in Number
4	Photo copy of the Mail correspondence between 1 and 2
5	Legal Notice along with acknowledgment
6	Photo copy of the Passbook

 

5.      On the other hand OP No.2 filed chief affidavit along with 7 attested copies of the documents as shown below:-

a.       Letter from Op No.3 to 2.

b.       Application form of the Complainant.

c.       Letter from OP No.2 to 3.

d.       Utilization certificate from Op No.2 to 3.

e.       Letter from Op No.2 to 1.

f.       Data form.

g.       Operation guidelines of RRY.

 On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:  

1.   2.	Weather the Complainant proves that, the Complaint filed is within this jurisdiction?   Whether the Complainant proves that, OPs made deficiency in-service and Un-fair trade practice?
3.   4.	Whether complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed for?   What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative.

Point No.2 – Affirmative.

Point No.3 – Partly Affirmative.

Point No.4 - As per the final order for the following:

   R E A S O N S

6.      Point No.1:  The complainant filed this complaint against the Op’s submitting that, Ops made unfair trade practice, the complainant approach OP No.3 for construction of house under the government scheme, the OP No.3 selected the complainant and forwarded the letter to OP No.2 and OP No.2 sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under the said government scheme later on complainant observed that, the interest on the said amount is more than the scheme, Complainant approach Op No.2 to collect the information why the interest is more OP No.2 informed that, the said loan account was opened under the scheme code as TLPHL instead of TLPHA. Further complainant submits that, it was informed by OP No.2 that the said code accounts are not eligible for subsidy of the loan, complainant corresponded by many letters to OP No.2 and finally he filed this complaint.

On the other hand OP NO.2 submits that, the complainant is not eligible for the said loan scheme and is not eligible for loan subsidy, OP further submits that, the complaint filed by the complainant have lack of jurisdiction since there is a arbitration clause between the parties which comes under the said arbitration proceedings. This is the first point to discuss, Ongoing through the complaint it is very clear in Consumer Protection Act, section 2 (r) (IV) and (VI) point says that, IV. Represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have; VI. Makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods and services; and if we considered the section (11) sub class (2) (b) says that, Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the Complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business 1[ or has a branch office], or personally works for gain: PROVIDED that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business, [or have a branch office], or personal work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or here we observe that, complainant filed this complaint against the OP’s here OP No.2 and 3 are residing in this jurisdiction only, Moreover as per the contention of Op No.2 if any dispute arises between the parties as per the operational guideline for Rajeev Rin Yojana (RRY) point no. (E) says as follows:-                   Disputes and Jurisdiction: All disputes and differences between First Party and Second Party arising part of these presents shall as far as possible be resolved through negotiations. However, if any differences/disputes still persist the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator appointed by the CMD, NHB under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliations Act, 1996. The decision of the sole arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. Arbitration proceedings shall be held at Delhi. If we agree this point then complainant no need to approach the forum, because she can be liable for the subsidy under this scheme, the dispute arises  because the account is not opened under the scheme, so that, the complainant is not getting her interest subsidy. In Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the National Insurance Company Ltd v/s Hindustan Safety Glass Work Ltd in 2017, 5 SCC 776, where it has been observed as follows “….in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the course to take a pragmatic view of rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage that a beneficent legislation in the form of consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted by parliament” such being the fact OP’s contention cannot be consider as per supra, hence we answer point no.1 in affirmative.

7.  POINT NO.2 & 3: These two points are identical and interlinked, hence we proceed both the points, together to avoid repetition of facts.  

The complainant filed this complaint against the OPs alleging that OP No.2 had opened her account under the wrong code hence she is not eligible for subsidy of government housing scheme, due to the negligency and unfair practice of OP No.2 she lost the subsidy given by the government to the eligible candidates. But OPs contended that, they approach OP No.3 as well as OP No.1 for interest subsidy amount that they have not received the interest subsidy, hence the complainant is liable for common housing interest hence they have not made any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.

          On scanning the records filed it is undisputed fact that OP No.3 forwarded the letter to OP No.2 for the government housing interest subsidy loan and forwarded the eligible list to the OP No.2 as per the written version filed by the OP they submits in Para no.4 that they agreed that OP No.3 had recommended the OP No.2 for sanction of bank loan of Rs.5,00,000/- under the scheme Rajeev Rin Yojana on 12.02.2015 and in Para no. 5 OP also admitted that complainant was entitled for interest subsidy @ 6.5% But their version is that the said subsidy amount has to be paid by OP No.3 or Central Government, OP No2 had sanctioned he loan for the Complainant on the recommendation by OP No.3 which was under RRY Scheme while OP No.2 sanctioning the to the Complainant, by mistake the code of the loan was wrongly mentioned which had been admitted by OP No.2 to said back the said mistake done by the OP No.2, the OP No.2 further submits  that, they sanctioned the loan to the Complainant as stated under the scheme Rajeev Rin Yojana and their contention is that as per the Rajeev Rin Yojana the person who is the owner of Plot holding the area which is less than 100 meter is entitled for the benefit of interest subsidy as the area of the plot is more than 100 mtr, hence she is not entitled to claim the interest subsidy any how while going through the guidelines of Rajeev Rin Yojana the guideline produced by the OP himself says as supra there is a sub clauses which says that in case of State Government allotted site and in ancestor property the above terms does not attracted. the OP No.2 have not produced the documents pertaining to property to show that whether the property is self-acquired, or ancestor property or else government allotted site, moreover, it is the bounded duty of the OP No.2 to look after the area and the documents pertaining to the plots it is very much clear that the OP had made a mistake by their negligency moreover, OP have not informed the Complainant that she was not eligible for the loan in this scheme for which she had applied while the loan is sanctioned on the bases of application of the Complainant it is treated that, the loan had been sanctioned for the applied scheme but in this juncture we scanned the document no.4 the mail correspondence made between OP No.1 and 2 it is clear that, they made negligency while opening the loan account if they have opened the account in a proper code complainant would have gained the subsidy from the central government under that scheme and due to the improper account opening made the complainant to suffer, hence we came to the conclusion that OP No.2 made unfair trade practice, since complainant is eligible for the benefits of the interest subsidy, cost of the proceedings and compensation, hence we answer point no.2 in affirmative and point no.3 in partly affirmative.

8.      POINT NO. 4: In view of our findings on above points, we pass the following: 

 

// O R D E R //

1. Complaint is partly allowed with cost.
2. OP No.2 is directed to give the benefit of interest subsidy @ 6.5 % per annum as per the scheme.
3. Further OP No.2 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000/-towards litigation charges.
4. Further OPs are directed to rectify the same within 30 days and report before the forum.
5. Further OP No.2 is directed to comply the order within 30 days failing which OP No.2 is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- to the consumer welfare fund
6. Send the copy of this order to the parties at free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on the day of 31^st August, 2018)

 

 

    (Shri B.S.Keri)                                (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

         Member                                                        President