Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/450/2023

AJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SOMESH GUPTA

03 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/450/2023
Date of Institution	:	15/09/2023
Date of Decision	:	3/9/2024

 

Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Amar Singh, R/o Flat No. E 7-14 First Floor, DLF Valley, Near Amravati Enclave, Panchkula

….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Union Bank of India through Regional Manager, Regional Office, SCO 64- 65, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh

2 Union Bank of India, SCO 302, Sector 9 Panchkula through its Branch Manager.

..... Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Somesh Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar (through VC),  Advocates for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Ajay Kumar, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that the complainant had taken home loan  of Rs.39,02,888/- for the purchase of Dwelling Unit bearing No. E 7-14, first floor, DLF Valley, near Amravati Enclave, Panchkula  from OP No.2  regarding which sanction letter  Annexure C-1 dated 8.3.2021 was also issued by the OPNo.1. The complainant had  also opened saving account with OP No.2. On 23.3.2021 loan amount was disbursed and accordingly the complainant got the sale deed registered  with respect of the aforesaid flat in his name and also completed all the necessary documentation regarding Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (PMAY)   Home Loan Subsidy under MIG-1 category with OP No.2. When after the lapse of sufficient time the complainant did not hear anything about the status of PMAY Home Loan Subsidy,  he sent  an email Annexure C-2 to OP No.2  vide Annexure C-2  dated 31.5.2021  which was not responded by the OP and the complainant had sent another email Annexure C-3 dated on 14.6.2021   to OPs which was also not replied by the OP. Finally the complainant visited the OP No.2 branch personally  and enquired about the PMAY status and he was informed that the application for subsidy is under process. It is further alleged that in fact when the complainant approached the OP No.2 for home loan and he enquired about the time period in which he may get PMAY subsidy and about the amount, it was assured by the OPs bank that he would get PMAY subsidy  to the tune of Rs.2,67,000/- within 2-3 months time from the date of sanction of home loan. However when no response was received  from the OP he enquired about the status of subsidy by moving an application under RTI Act with the concerned authorities  and finally when he could not get requisite information through RTI he filed his grievance in Chief Minister Grievance Redress & Monitoring System Haryana on 9.9.2021 and then he came to know about the status of his PMAY by portal. Not only this, even the complainant again approached the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance  and Pensions Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievance, Government of India on 18.4.2022  to know about the PMAY subsidy status and in response OPs had submitted   action taken report on 31.5.2022 vide Annexure C-10 intimating the complainant that the case has been closed on 2.6.2022  as the claim comes under MIG category  and portal for subsidy claim under MIG is closed  as on date and  once the portal  for MIG category is reopened,  his claim will be entered by the OPs  and the complainant will be informed accordingly.  On this, the complainant again approached the Banking OMBUDSMAN RBI and filed complaint on 16.11.2022 Annexure C-14 but the same was disposed by the said authority  by twisting the facts. In this manner as there is lapse on the part of the OPs  who has not submitted the case of the complainant for PMAY  subsidy with the concerned authorities as a result of which the same could not be processed  while the window of MIG category subsidy remained opened, the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice..  OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and mis-joinder of party. It is further submitted that in fact the complainant  has already  closed his loan account with the bank  and at present the complainant is not consumer qua OP. On merits admitted  that the OPs had submitted the documents and ID  No.C0002121429   had been generated  on PMAY portal and there is no delay on the part of the OPs. It is further alleged that  the OPs had never agreed or promised to  provide the subsidy and the complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainants is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In replication, complainants re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

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 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 obtained loan of ₹39,02,888/- from OP No.2, which was sanctioned by OP No.2 vide Annexure C-1 dated 8.3.2021 and the complainant applied for PMAY Home Loan Subsidy under MIG 1 category with OP No.2 and completed all the documentation  and requested the OPs for release of said subsidy claim but the claim of the complainant was closed , the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainants fall under the definition of a consumer and he is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint..
   2. Learned counsel for the complainant 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 and there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs who have not submitted the request of the complainant for subsidy with the concerned authority and the complainant being consumer of the OPs is entitled for subsidy amount from the OPs as due to their fault the same could not be released in favour of complainant.  
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that as the law is settled on this point that person claiming subsidy do not fall under the definition of consumer and the aforesaid question has already been answered by the Hon’ble National Commission as well as Hon’ble State Commission in various orders, the consumer complaint of the complainants, being not consumer, is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.  In support of his argument, learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank & Anr., R.P. No.4894 of 2012 decided on 8.2.2013 by the Hon’ble National Commission in which it was 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.
   4. 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. Learned counsel for the OPs has further relied upon Deepinder Singh & Anr. Vs. The Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. & Ors, R.P. No.1109 of 2014 decided on 24.1.2020 by the Hon’ble National Commission and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“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 complainant is 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.

3/9/2024	[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
	[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member