Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/384/2023

ANSHUL GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO BANK - Opp.Party(s)

KARAN SINGLA

08 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/384/2023
Date of Institution	:	7.8.2023
Date of Decision	:	8/07 /2024

 

1. Anshul Garg S/o Late Sh. Chaman Garg R/O HOUSE NO. 273, Sector 46, Chandigarh.

 

2. Kirandeep Kaur Lamba W/o Anshul Garg S/o Late Sh. Chaman Garg R/o HOUSE NO. 273, Sector 46, Chandigarh.

...COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

 

UCO Bank, through its Branch Manager, SCO-176, Sector 38/C, Chandigarh- 160036.

...OPPOSITE PARTIY

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Karan Singla, Advocate for complainants
	:	Sh. Rajinder Singh Sukhladi, Advocate for OPs (through VC)

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that vide publication Annexure C-1,  the OP has published public notice for auction  of a distressed asset i.e. House No. 1213/1, Phase 5, Sector 69, Mohali for  reserved price of Rs.43,61,000/-  scheduled on 6.1.2021. In order to participate in the said bid, the complainant had to deposit Rs.4,36,000/- as per the instructions and had accordingly  deposited the same  on 5.1.2021 i.e. one day before the auction through NEFT. In the  auction, the complainant became successful  auction purchaser  and the bid amount was closed at Rs.44,21,000/- . Thereafter the complainant being successful bidder and auction purchaser had deposited the  remaining amount  on different dates as per payment plan including the house loan amount of Rs.12,00,000/- under the  Pradhan Matri Awas Yojna Credit Linked subsidy scheme (PMAY-CLSS). The said loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant and disbursed on 15.2.2021 and the copy of sanction letter is annexed as Annexure C-3.  As per PMAY-CLSS scheme for the general public  on purchase of their 1^st  pucca house, a subsidy was made available to the purchaser and the complainants were eligible for the benefit approximately to the tune of Rs.1,08,300/- as the subject house was falling under the category of MiG-I and the copy of scheme is attached as
   Annexure C-2. Thereafter the complainants submitted the  documents to the OPs  for getting benefit of  PMAY-CLSS and later on the complainants came to know that the documents submitted by the complainants were sent by the OP in September 2021 to the retail loan Hub whereas  it was informed to the complainants that the scheme was closed in July 2021 even after the extended period in the said benefit  as a result of which the  subject benefit was denied to the complainants. The complainants approached the OPs by sending emails
   Annexure C-4 but with no result. Thus, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and also that the complainants have not approached this Commission with clean hands. It is further alleged that there was no scheme of subsidy on the loan for MIG1 after 31^st  Mach 2019. The loan was sanctioned to the complainant on 15.2.2021, whereas the subsidy under PMAY-CLSS was in force w.e.f. 1^st  January, 2017 to 31^st March 2019,  thus, the complainants were not eligible for the benefits under PMAY-CLSS  scheme. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.  The complainants have also placed on record Annexure C-5  alongwith the rejoinder to prove that the  subsidy scheme under PMAY-CLSS was extended upto 31^st March 2021.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainants had purchased the  subject house  by way of auction being successful bidder only on 6.1.2021 and in order to pay the sale consideration of the same they also obtained loan to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- from the OP bank under PMAY-CLSS of Government of India which was sanctioned on 30.1.2021 as is also evident from Annexure C-3 and the subject property falls under the category of MIG-I and as such the complainants had applied to the OP to avail benefit of subsidy under PMAY-CLSS,  the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainants fall under the definition of consumer under the Act.
   2.  Learned counsel for the complainants contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the complainants had availed the services from the OPs for consideration by taking loan from them, complainants being consumers of the OP are entitled for subsidy under the PMAY scheme.
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP contended with vehemence that a person claiming subsidy does not fall under the definition of consumer.
   4. We concur with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the OP as the Hon’ble National Commission as well as Hon’ble State Commission in various orders held that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a ‘consumer’.  The Hon’ble National Commission in Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank & Anr., R.P. No.4894 of 2012 decided on 8.2.2013 held that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a ‘consumer’, as the subsidy is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the remedy does not lie under the Act by filing a complaint and that he can seek relief from a Civil Court or some other Forum, as per law.
   5. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in Madan Lal Vs. Punsup Gas service & Ors., R.P. No.3382 of 2016 decided on 27.2.2017. Further the Hon’ble National Commission in Deepinder Singh & Anr. Vs. The Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. & Ors, R.P. No.1109 of 2014 decided on 24.1.2020 held as under by the:-

“6.    From the facts of the case and from the prayer of the complaint, it is clear that the main issue to be decided in the present case is about the release of amount of subsidy. The issue of subsidy cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum as has been held by the National Commission in the case of Chaudhary Ashok Yadav vs The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and Anr., Revision petition no.4894 of 2012 decided on 08.02.2013, wherein it has been held that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a 'consumer', as the subsidy is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and his remedy does not lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by filing a complaint and that he can seek relief from a civil court, or some other forum, as per law.”

 

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, and the ratio of law laid down in the cases of Chaudhary Ashok Yadav (supra), Madan Lal (supra) & Deepinder Singh (supra), it is safe to hold that the complainants are not consumers and the present consumer complaint is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  The complainants are, however, at liberty to approach the competent court of law for the redressal of their grievances. 
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 8/07/2024			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member