AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") is to the order dated 04.10.2013, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 639 of 2013 and preferred by the Complainant. By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tonk (in short "the District Forum").
It is the Complainant's case that he had started a Rural Industry of Earthworm Husbandry under Vermiform Compost, total cost of project being Rs. 2,57,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 2,31,500/- was given by Branch Manager, Tonk District Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd., branch office Niwai (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"), as a loan. It is averred that the annual installment of loan was Rs. 46,300/- and the first installment was paid on 04.10.2004, subsequent to which the Complainant had become entitled to the margin money of 25% of the cost of the project being Rs. 64,325/-. On 30.01.2003, an Application was submitted by the Complainant to the Bank seeking release of the margin money but the same was not forwarded to the fourth Opposite Parties namely, Director Khadi and Gramodyog, Jhalan Doongri, Jaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as "the Khadi Board"). It is pleaded that, it is only on account of the deficiency of service on behalf of the Bank that the Complainant was compelled to spent an amount of Rs. 33,609/- towards interest at the rate of 11% p.a. from 30.03.2003 to 30.12.2007, therefore the Complainant sought direction to the Bank to pay an amount of Rs. 64,325/- towards subsidy and Rs. 33,609/- paid toward interest, totaling to Rs. 97,934/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Bank filed reply on behalf of Opposite Parties 1, 2 and 3 stating that the Complainant had taken a loan for Vermiform Compost Industry of Rs. 2,31,600/- on 18.09.2002, which was to be paid in 5 years with interest @ 11.50%, with an annual installment of Rs. 46,300/-,payable along with interest. It is averred that in the Loan Application Letter the Complainant had not written that he would have to be given a margin money by any department nor was the Complainant got sanctioned any loan for the margin money paid. Therefore, no amount of margin money was liable to be paid to the Complainant. Additionally, the Complainant claims that amount of margin money was to be deposited in the year 2002 and therefore the Complaint is also time barred.
The Khadi Board filed a Written Version stating that there is no cause of action against it and sought the dismissal of the Complaint with cost.
A brief point that falls for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on behalf of the Bank.
Both the fora below have given the concurrent finding that there is no evidence on record to establish that the Complainant's account was to be credited with the margin money of Rs. 64,325/- and dismissed the Complaint.
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the Complaint was not barred by limitation as the initial loan was disbursed in June 2002 itself and therefore this was the second loan which was taken; that there was deficiency of service on behalf of the Bank in not submitting the Subsidy Claim Form dated 30.01.2003 till 11.11.2005 within the prescribed time limit due to which dereliction of service, subsidy could not be given to the Complainant. He further contended that the District Forum has wrongly concluded that the Bank is not liable to deposit any margin money in the Complainant's account unless there was an order from the competent authority, which is not the subject matter in the instant case.
It is the Petitioner's case that the Bank had never denied that the Complainant was not eligible for 25% subsidy. A perusal of the reply filed by Bank before the fora below shows that the Bank has denied that there was any order given by any officer to make payment of Rs. 64,350/- towards margin money which was not complied by the Bank and pleaded that the Loan Application did not whisper anything about the margin money. However, a perusal of material on record shows that the Khadi Board has filed reply before the State Commission, submitting that as per Office Order No. 1911 dated 17.01.2002, the margin money could be obtained in two ways either through the Bank or directly through the Khadi Board and if the Applicant wants the margin money through Bank he may obtain the same as per the procedure mentioned in the aforenoted Office Order.
It is pertinent to note that Rajasthan State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, Jaipur had issued a letter dated 05.09.2002 to Primary Cooperative Land Development Banks Limited regarding subsidy/ margin money, wherein it was stated that for Vermicompost Development, the Khadi Board is providing subsidy/ margin money and for which primary Bank should help the farmers in obtaining the subsidy/margin money and contact local Khadi office.
Having regard to the fact that the Khadi Board has filed reply before the State Commission with respect to office order No. 1911 dated 17.01.2002, which was not dealt with by the State Commission, we are of the considered view that the margin money could have been obtained through the Bank.
A perusal of the material on record shows that on the Application Form dated 30.01.2003 for release of margin money, there is a stamp and signature of the Bank dated 28.03.2003, which lends credence to the fact that the Application Form for release of margin money was submitted to the Bank, however, the same was not forwarded to Khadi Board. Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Bank in not forwarding the application of the Complainant seeking release of the margin money to the Khadi Board.
For all the aforenoted reasons and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Bank shall pay to the Complainant a lump sum compensation of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- together with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed in part with the aforenoted directions. Time for compliance is four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 6% p.a.