AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Heard counsel for the petitioner.
The above revision has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 13.12.2022 whereby the appeal filed by the bank has been allowed and order of the District Forum dated 10.05.2022 passed in CC/119/2018 has been set aside.
The fact of this case was that National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development, H.P. had announced a scheme of subsidy to promote animal husbandry, dairying, fishery etc. In this scheme, subsidy was being provided on first-cum-first-serve basis. The complainant applied for a loan of Rs.225000/- to Joginder Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. which was sanctioned by the bank on 29.03.2014. The complainant has repaid the loan but subsidy has not been awarded to him. Under the scheme, the complainant was entitled for subsidy of Rs.62000/-.
The State Commission in the impugned order, found that Joginder Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. has forwarded the names of 116 persons
on 30.06.2014 for grant of the subsidy. In that list, name of the complainant was mentioned at serial no. 70 but the subsidy was not granted as it was exhausted according to National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on part of anyone. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and order of the District Forum was set aside.
Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Section 115 of Evidence Act, 1872, submitted that once the scheme of subsidy was announced and the petitioner has acted upon it and has taken loan, then the opposite parties were stopped from saying that the amount of subsidy was exhausted. He further submits that the burden was upon the opposite party to prove that the petitioner did not fall in the category of first-cum-first-serve basis. Therefore, he was not granted subsidy.
I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. So far as the arguments based on doctrine of estoppel is concerned, under the scheme of subsidy, it has been clearly mentioned that subsidy would be provided on first-come-first-serve basis. It is well known that subsidy is limited to the extent of Government grant. Therefore, all the persons who have applied for loan due to the scheme of subsidy, cannot claim subsidy even after exhausting the Government grant and there will be no estoppel. So far as the burden of proof is concerned, Section 102 of Evidence Act, 1872 clearly provides that burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all be given by either side. In view of section 102 of Evidence Act, 1872, it cannot be said that burden of proof was upon the opposite party. Counsel for the petitioner however, relying upon Section 107 of Evidence Act, 1872 submits that this fact was in special knowledge of the opposite party and they had to prove this fact. The argument is not liable to be accepted inasmuch as it was a public record. The complainants might have obtained the certified copy of all the record from the opposite party. Impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The revision petition has no merit. It is dismissed.