Orissa

Jajapur

CC/135/2020

Braja Kishore Kar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory Odisha Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ramakanta Ghadia.

30 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : JAJPUR : ODISHA.

Consumer Complaint No. 135 / 2020.

Date of filing Complaint   :-            10.11.2020

Date of Argument                  :-        26.05.2023

Date of Order                          :-        30.06.2023.              

Dated the 30^th day of June’ 2023.

Braja Kishore Kar, S/o:- Late Dhruba Charan Kar,

Vill/PO:- Adanga Purusottampur,

P.S:- Jajpur Sadar, Dist:- Jajpur,                                              .  .  .  .  Complainant.    

                                    Versus.

1.  The Authorised Signatory. Odisha Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd,

AT: Routarapur, PO: Jajpur Town, Dist: Jajpur

2. The Chief Manger, State Bank of India,

Jajpur Town, AT; Kota basantpur,

P.O/Dist:Jajpur.

P R E S E N T S.

                        1. smt.Susmita Mishra,President.

                        2.    Sri Bibekananda Das,       Member (I/c).

               Counsels appeared for the parties.                           

For the Complainant        :- Adv. Ramakanta Ghadei & Associates. 

For the Opp. Parties No-1:-            Ex-Parte

For the Opp. Parties No-2: Adv Pranab Kumar Das Pattanayak

J U D G M E N T.

MRS SUSMITA MISHRA, PRESIDENT  :

               The present Consumer complaint bearing C.C.Case No.135 of 2020, has been filed U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant Sri Braja Kishore Kar, through his learned Advocate against the Authorised Signatory,Odisha Agro Industries Corporation  Ltd.  (referred to as the Opp.party No.1) and the Chief Manager,State Bank of India,Jajpur Town,Dist.Jajpur  (referred to as the Opp.party no.2) seeking the following reliefs due to deficiency in service and unfair Trade Practices by the above said O.Ps:

“ i.        The O.P.no.1 may be directed to pay the subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/-  along with approved interest from the date of delivery of the Tractor as well as to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with the cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

ii.         further the O.P.no.2 may be directed not to collect the interest on the subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/- till the disposal of the present dispute.”

Brief facts of the case.

1. This case is pertaining “SUBSIDY” against the cost of Tractor as per the circular of Directorate of Agricultures and Food Production,Govt.Of Odisha.The complainant is an agriculturist and originally inhabitant of village, Adanga,P.O.Purusottampur,Dist.Jajpur.
2. It is the case of the complainant that being an agriculturist he had purchased a Tractor for agricultural purpose only to maintain his livelihood by means of self employment. It is stated by the complainant that the O.p.no.1 is the Authorized Signatory of the Odisha Agro Industries Corporation  Ltd whose main function is to sell the  “Tractor”  to the agriculturist by way of subsidy, where as, the O.P.no.2 is the Chief Manager of State Bank of India, At.Kotabasantpur,Jajpur Town,Dist.Jajpur to provide financial assistance in shape of loan for purchasing different types of vehicle such as commercial and private vehicle including the tractor. It is also stated by the complainant that he had purchased a Mahindra Tractor bearing chasis No. MBNABALGKJRA 00845, Engine No.RJA 2MBA 1803 vide Regd.No.OD-34-G-4608 by the O.P.no.1. Further it is stated by the complainant that at the initial stage he had paid Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) only from his own pocket as down payment and the rest of the amount of Rs.4,60,728/- (Rupees Four lakh Sixty Thousand Seven Hundred twenty-  eight) only had provided by O.P.no.2 as a loan to the complainant out of the total cost of the Tractor is Rs.6,60,728/-(Rupees six lakh sixty thousand seven hundred and twenty eight only) . Again it is stated by the complainant that as against the cost of the Tractor, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.90,000/-(Rupees Ninety Thousand) only as  “ subsidy “  which is to be  released soon after the delivery of the Tractor as per the “ Circular of Directorate of Agricultures and Food Production, Government of Odisha.”  It is stated by the complainant that the vehicle Tractor had delivered on 28.05.2018 vide Letter No.41 / dt.28.05.2018 by the O.P.no.1( The Odisha Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Jajpur. But the O.P.no.1 has failing to released the subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/- in favour of the complainant. In fact, it is stated by the complainant that O.P.no.2 had collected interest against the loan amount including the subsidy amount from the complainant, which caused a great financial loss. On 05.08.2019 the complainant had requested through a written application to the O.P.no.1 for his grievance but in vain, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. Hence this petition filed by the complainant before this Commission.
3. After receipt of notice the O.p.no.2 appeared through his learned advocate and filed his written version on 12.02.2021. But the O.P.no.1 preferred not to appear or contest the case in any manner till 20.03.2022. Hence, the O.P.no.1 has been proceeded exparte on 20.03.2023.
4. In reply, the O.P.no.2 in his written version  stated that the complaint petition  is not admitted by the O.p.no.2( Bank) without any cogent documentary evidence. It is admitted by the O.P.no.2 that after due assessment ,the O.p.no.2 Bank had sanctioned an agricultural loan in favor of the complainant- borrower for the purpose of a Tractor, Trolly and its agricultural components. It is also admitted by the O.p.no.2 Bank that after due execution, loan documents in Bank’s standard format, the loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed in favor of the complainant-borrower in shape of a demand draft to the Authorized Dealer as per Quotation supplied by the complainant-borrower and deposit of margine money as his own contribution for that purpose. It is admitted by the O.p.no.2(Bank) that the complainant-borrower, accordingly, purchased the  Tractor, etc and utilized it for his agricultural operation. It is stated by the O.p.no.2 through his learned advocate that in shape of agricultural term loan the complainant has availed an amount of Rs.7,80,000/- (Rupees seven lakh and eighty thousand) only from this O.P.no.2( Bank) on dated 25.05.2018. It is also stated by the O.P.no.2 (Bank)  that an outstanding amount of Rs.4,41,497/- (Rupees four lakh forty one thousand four hundred and ninety seven) only exists in the name of the complainant borrower’s loan Account. So, the O.p.no.2(Bank) is no circumstances deficient in service to the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint petition.
5. The complainant  in support of his case has filed Xerox copy of vehicle’s (Tractor) Regd.certificate particular vide Regd.No. OD-34-G-4608/ dated 20.07.2018 from R.T.O, Jajpur.Copy of Tractor Trailer’s Registration Certificate particulars vide Regd.No.OD-34-G-4609/ dated 20.07.2018 from R.T.O,Jajpur ; a copy of Hand written Application for subsidy of the purchased Tractor  to the M.D; The Odisha Agro Industries Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar, a Copy of permit of Tractor with subsidy vide Farmer Id: Jaj/14392/date  of issue : 18.05.2018 ; a copy of quotation from the Odisha Agro Industries Corporation Limited (Goods) vide Sr.No. of Invoice: 6338/ dt. 28.05.2018 ; a copy of pollution Testing Certificate from Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (Tractor  Division) vide Form No.22 ; a copy of “F “ Form U/S 36(i) of M.V.Act,1939 from Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (Tractor Division)  and a copy of Form-21 (Sale certificate) vide Ref.No.41/dated 28.05.2018 of the Odisha Agro Industries Corporation Ltd, Jajpur.( All these documents submitted by the complainant and marked as C-1 to C-9)

On the other hand, the O.P.no.2 (Bank) has not produced a single relevant documents for his defence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the O.P.no.2(Bank) and carefully perused the record and documents therein.
7. It is admitted fact that the complainant had been sanctioned an agricultural loan for the purpose of to purchase Tractor with trolly and to use it only for agricultural operation to maintain his livelihood by means of self-employment.

Thus, the short question which arise for consideration in this petition is, as to whether the opposite parties(O.Ps)   are actually deficient in providing their   services to the complainant or not ?

Findings:

• It is admitted fact that the complainant entered into an agreement for purchasing a Tractor along with Trolly(Trailer) and other necessary equipments on 18.05.2023 with O.P.no.1 and 2 and accordingly the agreement was executed and sanctioned.
• In this regard learned Advocate for the complainant argued that it is an agricultural loan  and after purchased the above said Tractor  & Trolly with other equipments bearing Model No.Mahindra 575 DI MKM DLX (Brand Name: BHUMIPUTA), VIDE Regd.No.OD-340G-4608 from O.P.no.1. ( The D.M,OAIC CTD,JAJPUR)  on dated 28.05.2018,the complainant used the same for agricultural purposes having availed necessary “ subsidy” ( Attached Xerox documents marked as C-1,C-2,C-4 to C-6).
• It is also argued by the learned advocate for complainant that the total estimated costs to be incurred on purchased of the above said vehicle is Rs.6,60,728/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Thousand and Seven hundred and Twenty Eight)  only and the complainant at the initial stage had paid from his own pocket of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh) only as down payment and the rest of the amount of Rs.4,60,728/- (Rupees Four Lakh Sixty Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty eight) only to be provided by way of a loan from O.P.no.2 (S.B.I).
• Further it is argued by the learned advocate for the complainant that the complainant is entitled to get subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand) only to be paid by the O.P.no.1 to the O.P.no.2 after the delivery of the vehicle by way of subsidy to the beneficiary farmer/ agriculturist as per the circular of Directorate of Agriculture and Food Production, Govt. of Odisha. But as per letter No.41/ dt.28.05.2018, the subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/- has not yet been released by the O.P.no.1 in favour of the complainant – beneficiaries by way of  repayment of the loan to the O.p.no.2 (Bank),

In this regard, the learned advocate on behalf of the O.p.no.2.said the complainant is to proof all those facts through cogent documents.

But upon careful perusal of the record and documents it appears to us that the complainant did not produce any documents regarding the “ Circular of Directorate of Agricultures and Food Production, Govt.of Odisha”  related to  the subsidy to the beneficiaries farmers/ agriculturists. But it is pertinent to  note that, the complainant produced the Ref.Letter No.41/ dt.28.05.2018 Directorated of Agriculture and Food Production, Governement of Odisha,Vide Farmer Id; Jaj/14392/ date of issue ; 18.05.2018 clearly reflected the subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/- out of Rs.6,60,728/- which is a computer generated documents.(Attached and marked as C-4) .

• It is well settled in law that the complainant is required to prove the deficiency in service or unfair Trade practices on the part of the O.Ps, but here the O.P.no.2(Bank) have taken plea in his written version that this O.p.no.2 (Bank) denying the allegations made against them and specifically averred in para-5 that  the  complainant –borrower has availed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Eighty Thousand) only in shape of agricultural term loan from the O.P.no.2 (S.B.I) on 25.05.2018 and an amount of Rs.4,41,497/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty one thousand four hundred and Ninety seven) only  is an outstanding amount in the complainant borrower loan Account.”
• In this regard, the relevant portion of the para-4 in page-2 from the written version of the O.P.no.2 (Bank) has been admitted by the O.p.no.2 reproduced here as follows:

“ After due execution, loan documents in Bank’s standard format, loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the complainant-borrower in shape of a demand draft to the authorized dealer as per quotation supplied by the complainant-borrower and deposit of margine money as his own contribution for the purchase of tractor and trolly etc and accordingly the borrower has purchase it and utilized it for agricultural operation”.

           

Whereas, in the instant case, the O.P.no.2(Bank) did not preferred to produce any relevant documents. Thus ,the O.P.no.2(Bank) has failed to file a cogent evidence of outstanding amount of Rs.41,497/- (Rupees Four lakhs Forty one thousand Four Hundred and Ninety -Seven) only against the Agricultural Loan account of the complainant.

                        Again learned advocate for the complainant raised their voice that the O.P.no.2 has collected interest on the Agricultural loan amount including the subsidy amount instead of excluding the subsidy amount from the complainant, as a result the complainant had suffered financial loss which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair Trade Practice by the O.P.no.2.

                        In this situation, for the interest of justice, another question for consideration is raised whether the O.P.no.2(Bank) is entitled  to charge interest on the whole amount of the cost of the vehicle of Rs.6,60,728/- from the farmer beneficiaries or not ?

                        In the present case, the O.P.no.2 (Bank)  released the loan amount of Rs.6,60,728/- for the purchase of the Tractor- Trolly  with other equipments, but the O.P.no.1 (D.M,O.A.I.C Ltd) failed to give subsidy  of Rs.90,000/- by way of repayment of the loan to the Bank. As such , the O.P.no.2 (Bank) collected interested on the entire amount of loan outstanding in the name of the complainant-beneficiaries.

                        Regarding  the subsidy matter, the complainant relied on the judgement in M/SBellathi Primary Agricultural  Co-operative Bank Ltd Vrs. Selvaraj & etc (1995) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that:

                                    Xxx                          xxx                     xxx

Only when the subsidy is actually paid the loan amounts gets proportionately reduced and till then the liability for interest will be for the full amount of the loan. The deficiency is on the part of the State Government.”

It is clear from the above citation that no fault is identified by the  complainant against the O.P.no.2. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.p.no.2 and it is not involved in any unfair trade practice in charging interest on  the full amount of Rs.6,60,728/-.

                        In absence of any cogent evidence  viz, “ The circular of Directorate of Agriculture and Food Production, Govt.of Odisha, etc, we can not direct the State Government to compensate the complainant in any way since the State Government is not a party by the complainant in the present complaint. Since it is a year old case we are disposing it as per mandate of C.P.Act,2019.

            In the light of above discussion, we find that though the vehicle, “ Tractor” has been delivered to the complainant on 28.05.2018 as per letter No.41/ dt.28.05.2018 by the Directorate of Agriculture and Food Production, Govt.of Odisha ( Copy attached and marked as C-4)  but the subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/- yet not released by the OP.no.1 in favour of the complainant, caused mental agony hardship and financial loss to the complainant by the O.P.no.1 which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

            As the O.P.no.1 (O.A.I.C,Ltd-A Govt. of Odisha- undertaking) is deficient in their service  to the complainant undertaking) ,accordingly the complainant is entitled for relief. Hence the  order.

O R D E R

We therefore, allowed the complaint  in part against the O.P.no.1 and dismissed against O.P.no.2. The O.P.no.1 is directed to pay Rs.90,000/-(Ninety thousand) towards  subsidy amount and the said amount shall be  credited to the  loan account  of  the complainant with the Bank. Further  it is directed to O.P.no.1to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which  the O.P.no.1shall  be liable for execution proceeding under the C.P.Act,2019. No order as to cost and  the C.C.Case No.135 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of.

               Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.

               Judgment pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th   day of June’ 2023.