DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 26th day of September 2016.
C.C.No. 60 of 2014.
Kapileswar Patel, aged about 45 years son of Manbodha Patel.
Resident of village Birkel, P.O.Badimunda P.S. Bolangir Sadar,
District- Bolangir.
.. .. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Sub-Office,
Sahayog Nagar, Budharaja,Sambalpur, represented
Through it’s Deputy Director.
2.State Bank of India, Kusanga Branch, At/P.O-Kusanga,
P.S.Lolisingha,Dist-Bolangir, represented through it’s
Branch Manager.
3.D.I.C, Bolangir, At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir, represented through
It’s General Manager.
.. .. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the complainant- Sri A.K.Mishra & Associates.
Adv. for the O.P.No.1 - Sri J.K.Sahu & Associates.
Adv. for the O.P.No.2 - Sri B.C.Pradhan.
Adv. for the O.P.No.3 - None.
Date of filing of the case- 22.08.2014.
Date of order - 26.09.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
Complainant is an unemployed youth and selected by the District Task Force committee for “ Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme” in short “PMEGP” scheme. The ID No.KV OR32-11487 and intimated under letter No.3004,dt.14.01.2014.The project cost is Rs 10,00,000/- in respect of (Industry) Cement works.
2. The complainant averred the task force committee constituted under the chairmanship of District collector, Bolangir approved him to be a beneficiary under “PMEGP” scheme in intimating to the SBI, Bank, Kusang, Branch vide letter No.0SO/PMEGP/PF/Dist- Bolangir,2013-14/3004 dt.24.01.2014, in allotment of 10nos- KVOR 32- 11487.
3. It is alleged, the State Bank of India, Kusanga Branch repudiate in sanction of loan to the beneficiary of PMEGP scheme on the ground that “ the present and proposed business address of the applicant is out of service area.” Hence we return herewith the proposal for your information and necessary action”.
4. The complainant founded his pleadings in reliance of intimation letter, recommendation of committee letter, project work copy and affidavit.
5. In pursuant to notice O.P.1 admitted in his version that the complainant has made application and the task force committee selected him as a beneficiary and as per the O.P.1 forwarded the application to SBI, Kusanga Branch for sanction of loan and contended the complainant at no point of time intimated anything to the O.P.1 about the inaction of the O.P.2 nor has requested to change the during the period of limitation. This O.P. has apprised about all the facts and inaction of the complainant and even advised to apply afresh as there is no legal bar for second application. In view of the matter, this O.P is no way liable for any claim or deficiency. The proceeding as laid is not maintainable and be rejected.
6. The O.P.2 submitted that the case is not maintainable in the present form in as much as the fact that, village Birkel under Panchayat Samiti Badimunda is not coming under the service area of SBI, Kusanga, Branch of this O.P and as per guidelines is unable to sanction any loan to a person/ institution outside the service area. The O.P carries on business on service area provided by is authorities.
7. Further submitted that this O.P had received a letter from O.P.No.1 regarding the sanction of loan to the petitioner but as the petitioner village is not coming under the service area of this O.P, so it immediately intimated to O.P.No.1 vide letter dated 24/75, dt. 24.02,.2014. In view of such documentary evidence, it is prayed, the petition may be rejected with cost.
8. The District Industries Centre, Bolangir on notice appeared on dt.21.10.2015,but remain silent for the entire proceeding. Not prefer to file version.
9. Heard the parties and counsels at length and perused the materials on record.
10. As we come across from the record, the complainant has appeared before the task force and the application is recommended for loan sanction, became a beneficiary in sanction of loan under PMEGP in intimating the SBI Kusanga Branch. So in availing the service of bank to which the O.Ps acquiesces, the case is maintainable as it suffers no barred of limitation or cause of action. The task force authorities are paid which amounts to consideration in running of the scheme.
11. No dispute prevails on the issue task force recommendation except the sanction of loan and the jurisdiction of bank to lend under the PMEGP scheme. As the ”PMEGP” guidelines goes Khadi and village Industries commission, hereinafter O.P.No.1 and State Bank of India, Kusanga Branch, herein after called as O.P.2 is responsible in sanction of loan on recommendation as a beneficiary under “PMEGP” scheme for the year 13-14.
12. Perusal of records reveals both hurled stone to each other on each’s responsibility and it is well know fact, the list of villages or Gram Panchayat that covered or includes the service area of the bank is within their knowledge and domain.
13. The core question raised and admitted, the petitioner’s application is sent to “SBI Kusanga Branch” and same application is not entertained by the branch on the ground that the area or village Birkel of Badimunda Grama Panchayat does not come under the service area operation and which is within the knowledge of these O.Ps, the list of village as incorporated in brochure of “PMEGP” guidelines.
14. The O.P.1 submitted no intimation has been sent by the concerned bank but it is on the record that on dt.24.-2.2014 ,SBI Kusanga branch has intimated specifically to O.P.1 that the beneficiary/applicant does not come under the service of the bank in addition to that the bank has furnished the Annual credit plan document that exhibits the service area of Bank Branches in Bolangir District in this context the code No.12 and code No.063 establishes , that scope of operation of Kusanga branch is beyond the stipulated area of operation.
15. Further the petitioner submitted even if that it be the case urged by the bank still it is astonishing the bank has included and also made provision of “PMEGP” scheme loan or sanctioned to the person named Brundaban Patel of village-Birkel, Kusanga Bolangir, bearing Account No.11809215065, Kapileswar Patel, village-Birkel, Kusanga Bolangir bearing Account No.33983028752 and Giriswar Patel of village Birkel, Kusanga, Bolangir bearing Account No.11809229434, which established and quite evidential, the SBI Kusanga branch has acted at it’s sweet will in gross disregard of a central sponsored “PMEGP” scheme in arbitrary and conspicuously disregard of RBI mode of schematic ethics.
16. Again, the application is made on 22.08.2014 and the bank appeared on 19.01.2016 after repeated & continous service of notice, summon and NBW which further states, the bank disregard the laws of land and played hide and seek to suppress its violations of the guidelines and sanctioned to the village area, which it denies the jurisdiction of service extends to. It is ample evidential, the SBI Kusanga branch has committed gross deficiency of service inclusive of unfair trade practice indulgence under the shelter of RBI guidelines and on the other side, O.P.1 not made any documentary rebut or produce any record that the letter No.24/75 dated 24.02.2014 as said to have intimated is manufactured by the bank in post raising of the issue by the petitioner and not intimated and O.P.1 being the nodal agency in implementation of the start up scheme has taken steps against the bank in discrimation of sanctioning loan which has effected the programme and true implementation of guideline under “PMEGP” scheme is derailed or action initiated on the violation of stipulation that “ in case the project is not sanctioned and released by your bank within the time limit as prescribed in the guidelines of PMEGP, it should be returned to this office with reasons for further action on the same. The proposal may kindly be considered within the stipulated period”.
17. The O.P.3 is a responsible constituent in the “PMEGP” district task force, who also failed to submit necessary guidelines and service area operation of bank with repeated and bold assurance which is strictly necessary for adjudication ,but authority although give assurance to place document, remained silent in delaying the process and making mockery law and callous to the core. Thus made commission of deficiency.
18. Having saying, the scope exists for fresh application by the petitioner will not resurrect the loss of year and propensity to grow in business. The potentiality has been out rightly denied by the bank in discriminating the beneficiary for ulterior reasons. No irregularity or default is found at petitioners end but suffered inconceivably. Prevalent of sweet will in rendering sanction of loan under the central scheme is by the respective bank authority is conspicuously demonstrated. No plea or solid rebut is adduced by the banker or made any affidavit that not a single person of Birkel village has been made provision of “PMEGP” loan disbursement. Such action by the bank is a derogatory action against scheme for which the hope and aspiration of the petitioner is shattered and devastated for of his no fault. For this reason, the review of performance by the banks is completely warranted with exemplary cost. We find gross deficiency of service at all the O.Ps end. Hence ordered;
ORDER.
The case is allowed on contest. The O.P.1 is directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only towards loss of year, business and compensation inclusive of cost within 40 days of this order, failing which interest @ 6% P.A will accrue on the sum from the date of application till realization.
(ii) Further O.P.2 is directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand ) Only, towards compensation and cost within 40 days of this order, failing which interest @ 6% P.A. will accrue on the sum, from the date of application till realization.
(iii) O.P.3 is directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only towards compensation and cost and mental agony sustained. for giving assurance to file PMEGP document and later dissuadely remained absence not heeding the call of the forum. Within 30 days of this order, failing which interest @ 6% P.A will accrue on the sum from the date of application till realization.
(iv) The task force committee is directed to review the performance of the banks involved and to take urgent steps in surface of discrepancies flouted in disbursement of such schematic failures as it links to the sustence of the scheme and livelihood of the beneficiary concerned.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEP’ 2016.
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
