Haryana

Ambala

CC/321/2018

Gurcharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Top One Electricals - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Gupta

04 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                          Complaint Case No.:  321 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   01.10.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :   04.11.2019.

 

Gurcharan Singh son of late Shri Kanshi Ram, age 57 years, resident of Village Sahazadpurmajra, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

                  

                                                          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Top One Electricals through its Prop Shri Suresh Kumar near Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Naraingarh.
2. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sahazadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.
3. Regional office, Punjab National Bank, Sector 17, Bank Square, Chandigarh.
4. Manager NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development) Punjab and Haryana Regional Office, Sector 34A, Chandigarh.

           ..…..Opposite Parties.   

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Ashok Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                   OP No.1 ex parte vide order dated 06.02.2019.

                   Shri Anish Kumar Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

Shri Jaideep Prashar, Advocate, counsel for OP No.4.   

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) and prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.81,600/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant is a shopkeeper and is having bank account No.639800AP00000285, with the OP No.2. The Ministry of New and Renewal Energy through NABARD launched a scheme for installation of solar panel with benefit of discount in electric consumption bills and subsidy of Rs.21,600 @ 40%, on the total cost. He agreed to get installed a solar penal, ‘Grid solar application system’ at his residence, Village Sahazadpur Majra. The OPs No.1 and 4 promised to provide the benefits of the scheme i.e discount in electricity bills and subsidy of Rs.21,600/- within one year after the installation of the solar penal system. OP No.1 installed the solar penal system in the month of May 2014, at the cost of Rs.59,619/-, which was financed by OP No.2. Immediately, after installation of solar penal, the OP No.1 provided all the documents to the OP No.2, to claim the amount of subsidy from the OP No.3. He duly signed all the documents and helped the OP No.1 to handover the same to the OP No.2, who, purported to have forward the case to OP No.4 through OP No.3 within one year from the date of finance and installation of solar system. He paid all the loan amount within a period of one year, but he could not get the subsidy amount. On his request, the OP No.2, wrote a letter dated 09.10.2017, to OP No.4 for release of subsidy amount, but nothing was done by the OP No.4. Thereafter, he visited to the OP No.4, its official told him that the documents of subsidy claim were not sent in time by the OP No.3, and as such subsidy has been lapsed. By not paying the subsidy amount, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.       Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 06.02.2019.

3.                Upon notice, OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi, cause of action and guilty of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. On merits, it is stated that it was the duty of OPs No.1 & 4 to provide the benefits of the scheme to the complainant. It was the duty of the complainant to lodge the claim for subsidy and the matter regarding the sanction/release of subsidy was between the complainant and OP No.4. The OPs No.2 & 3 have nothing to do as it was not the duty of the Bank to lodge the claim for subsidy. On verbal request of the complainant, the OPs No.2 and 3, vide letter dated 09.10.2017 and 03.11.2018, took up the matter with the OP No.4 for release of subsidy amount, but of no use. Thereafter, he never approached the bank for taking up the matter with the OP No.4. They have not committed any deficiency in service because immediately after completion of all the requisite formalities by the complainant, they applied for release of the subsidy. Therefore, the present complaint may be dismissed with costs against them.

4.                 Upon notice, OP No.4 appeared through counsel and filed written version taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability; bad for non joinder and mis joinder of parties. On merits, it is stated that Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, Government of India launched a scheme, ‘Solar Lighting Systems and Small Capacity PV Systems’ under Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM), wherein the NABARD/OP No.4, acted as a pass through agency on behalf of Government of India for disbursing subsidy, as per the guidelines and availability of funds allocated by the Government of India to NABARD from time to time. Further stated that the subsidy was to be released on ‘First Come First Serve’ basis, subject to availability of funds and in accordance with the guidelines, on submission of complete requisite documents within the prescribed period. The OP No.4 did not receive the subsidy documents of the complainant within the stipulated period. The OP No.4, vide circular No.85/DOR-GSS/2017 dated 06.04.2017, had advised the financing banks to send the subsidy proposals, for which term loans were sanctioned till 31 March, 2015 under the scheme of Solar Lighting Systems and Small Capacity PV Systems under Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission, issued by Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India. Vide said circular, it was advised that all the subsidy claims under the scheme sanctioned by Financing Banks up to 31^st March, 2015, should reach to the respective NABARD Regional Offices by 18^th April, 2017 for consideration. It was observed that the financing Bank submitted the claim through its controlling officers vide letter No.CO:CHD dated 08.06.2018, which was received by the OP No.4 on 18.06.2018. Since there was delay in submission of the claim by the financing bank, therefore, it was not considered for sanction. The Government of India closed the solar scheme implemented through NABARD w.e.f. 01.04.2017 onward. In absence of receipt of claim application of the complainant by NABARD from the financing bank within the stipulated period under the Scheme. Thus, it has no liability towards the complainant. Denying rest of the allegations, prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint against them with costs.

5.                The complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C1 to C5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit of Shri Ashok Verma, Punjab National Bank, Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala as Annexure OP-2 alongwith the documents Annexure OP2/1 to Annexure OP2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2 and 3. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for OP No.4 tendered affidavit of Deepak Jakhar, District Development Manager, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, (NABARD), Branch Ambala as Annexure OP4/A alongwith documents Annexure OP4/1 to Annexure OP4/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.4.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                Moot           question which falls for consideration is as to Whether complainant is Consumer qua the OPs?

                   Our Answer is in negative because in the case of Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Versus Rewari Cooperative Central Bank & others (Review Petition No.4894 of 2012, decided on 08.02.2013, The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has already held that “Subsidy offered to be paid is not service as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986”. Consequently, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to approach the competent Court/Authority for redressal of his grievance. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :04.11.2019.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                             Member                            President