STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                   (ADDITIONAL BENCH)

Satnam Singh son of Sh.Jaswant Singh, R/o Vilalge Dugari, PO Malikpur, Tehsil & District Ropar. 

                                                                                                …Appellant

                                         V e r s u s

1.    The Punjab Agriculture Development Bank, Ropar, District: Ropar, Punjab               through its Branch Manager.
2.   The Punjab Agriculture Development Bank, SCO 82-85 Sector 17,   Chandigarh through its Sr. Manager.
3.   Punjab Dairy Development Board, SCO 1106-07, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh                           through its Director.

                                                                                        ...Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 09.06.2022 passed by       District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.592/2019.

 BEFORE:     MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:    Mr. Devinder Kumar, Advocate   for the appellant.

                       Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2

                       (Respondent No.3 ex-parte)

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

                     This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.06.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh          (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the complaint bearing No.CC/592/2019 in the following terms;

“In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹1,65,000/- to the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of ₹3000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

            Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against Opposite Party No.3, therefore, the consumer complaint qua it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

           This order be complied with by the OP No.1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2.             Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/appellant   that  after availing a loan of Rs.9 Lakhs from respondent No.1 for establishing a Dairy Farm under the Hi Tech Dairy Scheme of Government of Punjab, he constructed one shed and store and purchased cows. The complainant was repaying loan instalments regularly and suddenly few cows died which were insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd.  The Insurance Company paid the last claim on 27.10.2014 which was credited to the  account of respondent No.1 but the same was not credited into the account of the complainant  on the plea that no claim amount was received by it. The complainant was then compelled to file a consumer complaint but still the bank did not take any action. The respondent Bank never supplied bank statement to the appellant. Due to death of cows there was loss of milk production, and as such, the complainant could not pay the loan and the loan account was declared as NPA and the respondent started pressing hard for repayment of the entire loan amount. Ultimately the complainant arranged money from a private financier on interest and paid the entire loan amount in two instalments in the month of May,2018.  It was alleged that the respondent bank refused to adjust the subsidiary amount Rs.1.75 Lakhs received from the Director, Punjab Dairy Development Board-Respondent No.3, and orally informed  the complainant that due to default in repayment of loan, he was not entitled to receive the subsidy amount   from the Government of Punjab. The copy of loan clearance certificate is annexed as Annexure C-3. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the respondents calling upon them to refund the subsidy amount of Rs. 1.75 Lakh but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties/respondents, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.

3.             Upon notice of the complaint, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2/Respondents No.1 & 2 appeared before the Ld. Lower Commission and contested the complaint. In their joint reply it was admitted that they did receive the subsidy amount from Opposite Party No.3/Respondent No.3 but the same was to be released/adjusted at the time of final adjustment of the loan account (subject to account being regular and not a default one) within lock-in-period of minimum three years and the entitlement of the subsidy is governed by the instructions/conditions of the NABARD. It was further stated that the subsidy amount was wrongly mentioned as Rs.1,75,000/-, in fact it was Rs.1,65,000/-. Since the complainant was defaulter in repayment of his loan amount, and as such, his loan account was declared Non-Performing Asset(NPA) . In that eventuality, the complainant was well aware of the instructions of  NABARD and the conditions of the loan  sanction letter and  the self-declaration of the complainant to repay the loan amount without any default. It was further stated in the reply that though the complainant is not entitled to subsidy amount, being defaulter in repayment of loan, yet in the interest of justice and equity Opposite Party No.3 has agreed to pay the subsidy amount of Rs.1,65,000/- without any interest.

4.                  Opposite Party No.3, in its reply admitted that it is a case  for disbursement of subsidy of Rs.1,65,000/- to the complainant on account of purchase of animals and the same was recommended to the Primary Agricultural Development Bank, Roopnagar vide letter dated 30.12.2014. The said sanctioned amount of subsidy was to be disbursed by said bank and no cause of action accrued against the answering OP. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.  

5.           On appraisal of the pleadings, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the complaint of the appellant/complainant as noted in the opening para of this order.         

6.          Still dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant for grant of interest and enhancement of compensation.

7.                    We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties  and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. .                 

8.               The main ground of the appellant is that firstly the respondent bank failed to credit the insurance amount in the account of the appellant and he had to knock at the door of the District Forum for crediting the insurance claim. Further  lock-in period of the scheme was for three years and after that subsidy amount could be transferred to his account and  due to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents No.1 & 2 the appellant suffered financial loss as the said amount was not transferred to his account, whereas the said amount was lying with them. Though the subsidy amount of Rs.1,65,000/- has been received by the appellant yet this appeal is for modification of the order of the Ld. Lower Commission seeking interest @15.4 % p.a, on Rs.1,65,000/-  w.e.f. 18.10.2014 and for enhancement of compensation and litigation expenses.

9.                 As is borne out from the record, the appellant was sanctioned a loan of Rs.9.00 Lakhs for establishing a dairy farm  under the Hitech Dairy  Scheme of Government of Punjab. The appellant incurred Rs.5.00 Lakhs for purchase of animals/milk cattles, and as such, as per the  scheme, he was entitled to subsidy amount  of Rs.1,65,000/-.  As observed by the Ld. Lower Commission non-crediting of the insurance claim amount awarded to the appellant by the Insurance Company due to death of milk cattle in the account of the appellant by the respondent bank led the appellant in to the debt trap. However, the entire loan amount alongwith accrued interest was cleared by the appellant on 8.10.2018 as is clear from the Clearance Certificate  dated 12.10.2018 issued by the respondent No.1. The appellant requested the respondent bank repeatedly to supply the account statement and for transfer of benefit of subsidy amount to his account but to no effect.  Ultimately, respondent No.1 woke up out of deep slumber and wrote letter dated 17.5.2019 to respondent No.3 seeking clarification that the loanee/appellant  has cleared the loan amount  and upto date interest on 8.10.2018 and  being defaulter in repayment of loan instalments,  whether he was entitled to subsidy amount. The said letter is annexure R-1/4. Respondent No.3 in reply to the said letter intimated to respondent No.1 through mail (annexure R-1/5) as under;

“This is in reference to our sanction No.19816-19 dated 30.12.2014 in which we have clearly mention that locking period of this scheme is for three years after that subsidy can be transferred to the beneficiary account hence as per letter beneficiary already completed three year locking period time hence you are requested to transfer the subsidy amount in beneficiary account. “

10.             The main contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that as the appellant remained defaulter in making repayment of loan instalments, and as such, as per instructions of the NABARD and conditions of the loan sanction letter, self declaration of the complainant to repay the loan without any default, he was not entitled to any subsidy.

11.           In the instant case, when the appellant has cleared all the entire outstanding loan amount with upto date interest on 8.10.2018 vide clearance certificate dated 12.10.2018, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents No.1 & 2 to transfer the subsidy amount in the account of the appellant. However, respondent No.1 took up the matter with respondent No.3 only on 17.5.2019 and respondent No.3 clearly replied that after three years of lock-in period the subsidy amount was required to be transferred to the account of the beneficiary (appellant).  Had respondents No.1&2 been efficient in taking up the matter earlier after three years of the lock-in period or after clearance of the loan amount, the appellant would not have entered the arena of litigation. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents No.1 & 2 due to which the complainant suffered a lot of harassment and mental tension. The appellant is certainly entitled to  grant of interest. Though the appellant has claimed interest @ 15.4%, yet keeping in view overall circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the appellant is allowed interest @ 9% p.a. on the subsidy amount of Rs.1,65,000/-  from the date of clearance of loan i.e. 8.10.2018 till transfer of subsidy amount to the account of the appellant i.e. 20.7.2022. The appellant has already been granted compensation and costs by the Ld. Lower Commission and the same are kept intact.

12.              In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly accepted and the impugned order dated 9.6.2022 modified to the extent that in addition to the relief already granted by the Ld. Lower Commission,  respondents No.1 & 2 are liable to pay interest to the appellant @9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.1,65,000/- from 8.10.2018 till 20.7.2022, within thirty days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of default till payment is made.  

13.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 14.                The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

                                       MEMBER