DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Friday the 31^th day of May 2024

CC.403/2019

Complainant

Sadanandan. M,

Meppilassery (HO),

Madavoor. P.O,

PIN - 673585

Opposite Party

Branch Manager,

Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank,

Narikkuni Branch,

Uperas Building.

(By Adv. Sri. P. N. Udaya Bhanu)

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

            This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant had availed 10 agricultural loans by pledging gold ornaments, from the opposite party bank. The interest was 7% per annum. The subsidy was 3%. But the complainant was given subsidy only twice. Though he approached the branch manager several times, his reply was evasive. The loan number is not mentioned in the pass book. He is entitled to get subsidy amount of Rs. 15,982/-in total. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay the subsidy amount of Rs. 15,982/- and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

3. The opposite party has entered appearance and filed written version. The availing of 10 loans by the complainant is admitted by the bank. But according to the bank, the complainant has suppressed material facts. Whenever  subsidy was sanctioned, it was duly credited to account of the complainant and the same can be from the account statement.
4. For the loan availed on 24/05/2013 subsidy was not available as the loan was closed late. For loan availed on 16/04/2018 and 30/11/2018 the subsidy amount was not sanctioned by the NABARD. The loan availed on 10/04/2019 was closed before 6 months and hence the complainant is not entitled to the subsidy.
5. The subsidy amount is sanctioned by NABARD and bank has nothing to do with it except furnishing the details of the loans to the NABARD. The bank has no role in sanctioning the subsidy. The bank is always ready to provide all possible services to the complainant. Earlier there were some omissions to note the loan number in the pass book. But after core banking was implemented, there is no such problem. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. With above contentions, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complainant.       
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               1) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?                                                                 2) Reliefs and costs.
7. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext A1 on the side of the complainant. No evidence was let in by the opposite party.
8. Heard both sides.   
9. Point No 1:    The complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party for the reason that subsidy amount was not provided to him for the 10 agricultural loans availed by him pledging gold.
10. The complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext. A1 is the statement of account for the period from 03/02/2018 to 15/09/2022.
11. PW1 has deposed in the cross examination that during the pendency of the complaint, the entire subsidy due to him was credited to his account. Thus it is an admitted fact that the grievance projected in the complaint stands redressed after the institution of the complaint.
12. It is also admitted by PW1 that the subsidy is provided by the Central Government through NABARD. That being so, the opposite party bank has no role in the matter of sanctioning the subsidy. Moreover, NABARD, which is the competent authority to sanction the subsidy, is not a party to the proceedings. As long as the bank has no role in the matter of sanctioning the subsidy, no deficiency of service can be attributed against the bank.
13. To sum up, we hold that there is no proof of any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and consequently the complaint must fail.     
14. Point No. 2:- In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 31^th day of May, 2024.

Date of Filing: 10/12/2019

                                                         Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                 PRESIDENT                                                                               MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Statement of account for the period from 03/02/2018 to 15/09/2022.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 - Sadanandan. M (Complainant)

                                                     Sd/-                                                                                                Sd/-

                                              PRESIDENT                                                                                   MEMBER

True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                         Assistant Registrar.