Date of filing: 28.09.2016 Date of disposal:23.11.2017
Complainant: Debasis Ghosh, S/o.Dhrubapada Ghosh, resident of Vill.-Bandra(Shibtala),P.O.
& P.S.- Katwa, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713130.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: UCO Bank, Katwa Branch, represented by its Senior Manager, having its office
at Ganesh Market (1st floor), Kachari Road, Katwa, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713130.
Present: Hon’ble President: Smt.Jayanti Maitra(Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Miss Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Tarun Kumar Banerjee.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.Ps. to pay an inte-
rest @ 18% p.a. upon the sum of Rs.12,500/- from 24.6.2011 till date of realization, to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.
The complainant’s short case in hand is that he belongs to a poor family. After completion of his education he wants to start a business for earning his livelihood. After gathering knowledge of business the complainant set up his mind to do business of book, note book, pen, pencil & others. The complainant came to learn that loan is granting by Govt. of India under ‘Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana’ for establishing new business by poor and unemployed youths. Thereafter the complainant contacted with the O.P. and submitted an application for granting loan in favour of him under the abovementioned scheme.
After getting application the O.P. granted the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- vide loan A/c. No.TL/PMY4753/SELF on 31.5.2008 with a term that complainant have to pay the loan amount along with interest @ 11.5% p.a. within a period of five years. It is pertinent to mention here that in respect of the said loan the complainant deposited Rs.5000/- as margin money before the O.P. on 2.06.2008. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per the said ‘Yojana’ after repayment of loan amount every applicant/ loan subscriber will get subsidy of Rs.12,500/- from the O.P.
After taking loan amount the complainant established a business of selling of book and accessories by engaging himself and for earning his livelihood. Thereafter the complainant repaid the loan amount on regular basis to the O.P. along with interest and fully paid the loan amount within the stipulated period. The complainant repay the total loan amount on 24.6.2011.
The complainant further stated that though he repaid the loan amount along with interest time to time to the O.P. and never became defaulter in respect of the loan account. Since granting the loan the O.P. did not give the subsidy amount of Rs.12,500/- to the complainant. Several time the O.P. requested the O.P. verbally for granting the subsidy in his favour but the O.P. No.1 though assured they are looking into the matter but did not take any step for providing the subsidy amount to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant sent a representation to the O.P. No.1 on 11.11.2014. But O.P. No.1 remains silent in this regard. Thereafter the complainant sent a letter to the Banking Ombudsman on 9.3.2015.
On 18.5.2015 the complainant received a letter from the O.P. No.1 and came to learn that O.P. needs some time for solving the problem. Lastly on 26.7.2016 the O.P. issued a draft of Rs.12,500/- to the complainant regarding subsidy but did not pay any interest. Furthermore the complainant has stated that he paid the total loan amount on 24.6.2011. O.P. only paid subsidy amount after long period from the closing of the loan account. But the complainant is entitled to receive the interest from the subsidy amount i.e. Rs.12,500/-. Hence, the case.
The O.P. contested the case by filing written version and stating inter-alia that the complainant never produced any proper paper to get P.M.R.Y. Loan, neither any paper of Govt. approval even come for his loan, however when the loan was sanctioned by the bank, bank will not go to any dispute in regards to that.
This O.P. further states that the complainant was not paid EMI/Installment of loan regularly in time. The scheme of loan was sanctioned for five years, the subsidy what is to be given by the Govt. is back ended subsidy i.e. on the end of duration of sanctioned scheme the subsidy has to accrues, the loan was sanctioned as admitted on 31.5.2008 and on 24.6.2011 the loan was repaid without following the schedule of payment as per scheme, so no subsidy came up till then. No subsidy is given by the bank. It is the Govt. give the subsidy, as the loan was repaid long prior to schedule, so no subsidy came till the date of repayment of loan.
After long days the complainant prayed for subsidy and send a letter to Banking Ombudsmen. Though this O.P. Bank represented by its new Manager was not aware of the details transaction in view to give service to the complainant and required few months time. In this time the Banking Ombudsmen directed the O.P. Bank to give Rs.12,500/- to the complainant as subsidy amount but Banking Ombudsmen did not awarded interest amount. The complainant received the amount by cheque bearing No.539251 of UCO Bank on 27.7.2016 without any protest. But from the A/c. statement of the complainant of the A/c. No.1386060000632, it is not found that any subsidy amount was received by the bank from the Govt. in the name of the complainant. However, giving respect, the bank honoured the Ombudsman’s order the subsidy amount is paid without preferring any appeal.
This O.P. also stated that complainant never repaid any loan amount as per schedule and did not follow the scheme of the loan, present O.P. is carrying banking business under guideline of Reserve Bank of India and the premature closing of account and not regular payment of EMIS of the loan is clear detrimental to the interest of the O.P. This O.P. never did any unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice. Since the bank has not received the subsidy amount and since the account was prematurely closed, so no back ended subsidy came in the account at closing, but due to lapse of time the bank could not produce the subsidy claim document before the Ld. Ombudsman, so order was passed to pay the subsidy amount but not the interest. The present loan is a complementary service of the bank following the welfare scheme of the government, not a commercial business. The petitioner did not do any business as per agreement only to gate the subsidy amount he took the loan and ill used it without following the bank direction. He practically diverted the fund. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. bank. So, the present complaint is liable to be rejected with cost.
DECISION WITH REASONS
To prove the case the complainant has filed affidavit of examination in chief. The O.P. filed written version but did not file any evidence. Thereafter the argument is heard elaborately from both sides. The complainant has filed documents like certificate of District Industries Centre, Burdwan, employment exchange enrollment card and the UCO Bank Pass Book of S.B. Account No.TL/PMY/4753 SELF and letter to the O.P. Bank asking for subsidy money of Rs.12,500/- on 27.6.2011, 11.11.2014, 9.3.2015 and copy of letter dated 18.5.2015 of O.P. Bank asking for time for payment of subsidy amount, the copy of letter of Banking Ombudsmen dated 15.11.2016.
After hearing of both sides and on perusal of evidence on record as well as written version of the O.P. it is clear to this Forum that loan money of Rs.1,00,000/- was disbursed to the complainant on 31.5.2008 and as per the scheme as stated by the complainant the same to be repaid with 11.5% interest within a period of five years. But from the documents it appears that the complainant has cleared his entire loan amount within three years without following the schedule of payment as per the scheme and close the account on 24.6.2011. The O.P., therefore, rightly stated that such closing of account is made long before the terms of repayment and as it was not payment as per scheme and the subsidy is given by the Government generally at the end of the duration of the sanctioned scheme. However, the complainant did not file any document like the loan agreement nor the O.P. filed any such document. The complainant has not filed any documents to show to this Forum that the bank received the subsidy money of Rs.12,500/- on the sanctioned loan and withheld the same without disbursing the same to the O.P. More over it is the case of the O.P. that when the complainant prayed for subsidy amount abruptly on 27.6.2011 just after three days from the closing of his account on 24.6.2011. Therefore, the bank was not in a position to disburse the subsidy amount to the complainant. However, the grievance was taken by complainant to the Banking Ombudsmen and the Ombudsmen Complaint was disposed of by the Ld. Ombudsmen. However, the complainant did not file any document showing the order of the Banking Ombudsmen in this regard over the complaint No.201516005002758. Only the letter dated 15.1.2016 of the Banking Ombudsmen informing to the complainant that the matter has been taken up with the concerned bank/O.P. and the decision of the Banking Ombudsmen will be communicated to complainant by the O.P. Bank separately. The complainant did not file any documents regarding the decision of the Banking Ombudsmen in this case. However, the O.P. in his written version stated that the detailed transaction of the loan amount were produced before the Banking Ombudsmen following the complaint and as per order of the Ld. Ombudsmen the awarded subsidy amount was sent to the complainant which he received through cheque No.539251 of UCO Bank, Katwa Branch. There is no order as to payment of any interest over the subsidy amount. Giving respect of the order of the Ld. Ombudsmen the O.P. Bank paid the subsidy money to the complainant and the complainant received the same without any protest. The complainant never stated that he raised objection regarding non-payment of any interest over Rs.12,500/-. Therefore, Ld. Ombudsmen by his order directed to pay the subsidy which the bank complied.
The trouble arose as the complainant did not repay the loan amount within time framed of five years as per the scheme of the loan. He repaid the loan within three years. Therefore, subsidy amount was not received by the complainant which is generally received at the end of the time of repayment as per schedule. There is nothing to prove that the bank withheld the subsidy amount and did not disburse the same to the complainant. The O.P. Bank only paid the amount following the order of the Ld. Ombudsmen. Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. Bank. So, the question of mental pain, agony and harassment for non-payment of interest over the subsidy amount does not arise. There is no document to show that complainant is entitled to get interest on subsidy amount, if not paid within time framed. The complainant, however, failed to establish his case by any cogent oral or documentary evidence that he is entitled to get any interest on subsidy amount. O.P. Bank has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Therefore, the complaint petition is considered and rejected.
Court Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the consumer complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Nivedita Ghosh)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
