Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Monisha Barik
For OP/OPs : None
Date of filing of the case :19.02.2020
Date of Disposal of the case : 21.12.2022
(2)
Final Order / Judgment dtd.21.12.2022
Complainant above name filed this complaint against the aforesaid OP U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service. He prayed for direction upon the OP to make correction in their work and to return whole amount of money to the complainant as per PMEGP/NGM/2012-2013 loan scheme and also to pay compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs).
He alleged in the petition of complaint that OP had granted a loan to him Vide No.913/PMEGP/2013-2013 dated 19.09.2012. Said loan was sanctioned under PMEGP-2012-2013. Amount of the loan was Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lakhs) for the scheme of production of Detergent Powder by the complainant.
As per the said scheme, KVIC sent Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs) to the bank as block capital. OP gave Rs.1,87,000/-(Rupees One lakh eighty seven thousand) to the complainant for machinery expenditure.
It was said by the OP that amount of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six lakhs) would be transferred to the new cash credit account of the complainant but they did not pay any such amount.
Due to the negligence on the part of OP, complainant did not get working capital from the OP. He went before the OP time to time and stated his problem but OP did not pay any heed.
On 26.07.2019 complainant got a letter from the OP wherein they stated that they have closed the account of the complainant as the unit is not running properly.
Complainant has already paid Rs.90,000/-(Rupees Ninety thousands) in the process of EMI. Due to negligence on the part of OP he sustained loss of time and could not continue the aforesaid work.
OP is not contesting the case.
Complainant filed affidavit in chief and also filed certain documents through firisti.
Documents
- Copy of sanction letter dtd.15.03.2013..........(One sheet).....(Xerox)
- Copy of sanction letter issued by UBI dtd. 08.04.2013....(one sheet).....(Xerox)
- Copy of document of Certificate....(One sheet)......(Xerox)
- Copy of letter issued by G.M., Dist. Industries Centre, Nadia dtd. 17.08.2012........(One sheet).........(Xerox)
(3)
- Copy letter issued by UBI, Kolkata dtd. 26.07.2019.....(One sheet).....(Xerox)
- Bank Statement.........(Three sheets).......(Xerox)
- Complain letter to CAB.....(One sheet).......(Xerox)
Decision with reasons
It is the allegation of the complainant that one loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant by the OP Vide their letter number WBR/PMEGP/NGM/288/2013 dated 15.03.2013. We find that OP sanctioned the scheme of the complainant. They clearly mentioned that project cost is Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight lakhs). Out of which working capital is Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six lakhs) and fixed capital is Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs). On perusal of letter number UBI/WBR/PMEGP/2019 dated 26.072019, we find that OP informed the Director , Khadi and Village Industries Commission, 33, Chittaranjan Avenue, 6 & 7 floor, Kolkata- 700 012. OP in the said letter stated;-
“In accordance to above advise we have liquidated the account number 04443069106900 of Nani Gopal Mondal after adjusting the margin money and made a draft of Rs.58,457/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand four hundred fifty seven) favouring KVIC, so, PMEGP bearing number 745043 dated 09.07.2019 payable at Kolkata.”
On perusal of bank account statement of the complainant we find that OP charged interest amounting to Rs.84,500/- (Rupees Eighty four thousand five hundred), Rs.39,000/- (Rupees Thirty nine thousand) and Rs.58,500/- (Rupees Fifty eight thousand five hundred), we also find that on different times OP included the interest.
But I find from the affidavit in chief of the complainant that OP only paid the CE amount and did not pay the working capital in favour of the complainant.
As OP is not contesting the present case so we could not get the explanation of the OP as to why they did not disburse the working capital. We failed to understand as to why the OP after receipt of the notice did not contest the present case.
The allegation against the OP is serious in nature. Now a day’s unemployed persons are knocking the door of the different Government offices and banks for getting aid so that he can somehow arrange a project for earning something for his livelihood. Government is also taking different steps for generating employment for the unemployed persons. Government has been launching different projects for the said purpose and also giving subsidy to make the project viable.
(4)
In the present case we find that Government has launched the said project after giving financial aid and OP was asked to implement the said project. But what we find in the present case is that OP all on a sudden stopped the payment of working capital in favour of the complainant as a result complainant could not start the project. Once the project sanctioned then it can be said that complainant was fit to get the aforesaid loan. But if any bank authority all on a sudden in the middle way stopped to pay the working capital then the machinery which was installed for working cannot work for production. During the period of disbursement of loan amount if any dispute arises their it should be solved with the interference of Government officials. But in the present case OP did not issue any letter in favour of the complainant as to why he wants to cancel the project and stopped the payment. Even OP did not give any intimation to the Government official who approved the scheme and released financial aid in the form of subsidy as to why he cancelled the project.
In the present case OP not yet appeared nor filed any W/V. If he would contest the case then we got his explanation. The silence of the OP compelled us to presume that he has no sufficient explanation against the allegation of the complainant.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, evidence on records and documents on record we find that complainant has able to established that OP did not provide the working capital of the loan in favour of the complainant and the aforesaid act on the part of OP is nothing but deficiency in service. Due to the aforesaid act of OP complainant could not run the aforesaid industrial work i.e for production of Detergent Powder as a result he sustained mental pain and agony and accordingly complainant is entitle to adequate amount from the OP as compensation.
So necessary direction should be given to OP for arrangement of disbursement of working capital so that complainant can start the production of Detergent Powder.
In the result present case succeeds. Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against OP with cost of Rs.3000.00(Rupees three thousands) to be paid by OP in favour of the complainant.
OP is directed to disburse the working capital amounting to Rs.6,00,000.00 to the complainant as per the aforesaid sanction letter within one month from this date so that complainant can run the project and can arrange for production of
(5)
Detergent Powder within one month from this date failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
OP is directed to pay Rs.50,000.00(Rupees Fifty thousands) to the complainant as compensation for his physical harassment and for his mental pain and agony within one month from this order failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the complainant as free of cost.
Let a copy of this order be sent to OP for compliance.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri dAMAN pROSAD BISWAS,) ..................... ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri dAMAN pROSAD BISWAS,)
I concur,
........................................
MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
