National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Deepinder Singh & Anr. vs The Primary Co-Operative Agricultural ... on 24 January, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1109 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 21/08/2013 in Appeal No. 1331/2009 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. DEEPINDER SINGH & ANR. S/O RAJINDER SINGH, R/O VILLAGE BAM, TEHSIL MALOUT, DISTRICT: MUKTSAR PUNJAB 2. REETINDER SINGH, S/O RAJINDER SINGH R/O VILLAGE BAM , TEHSIL MALOUT, DISTRICT: MUKTSAR PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED & 2 ORS. THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MALOUT DISTRICT: MUKTSAR PUNJAB 2. NATIONAL BANK OF AGRICUTURE & RURAL DEVELOPEMENT (NABARD) REGIONAL OFFICE: PLOT NO.3, SECTOR 34-A UT CHANDIGARH 3. STAT OF PUNJAB , THROUGH SECRETARY CO OPERATIVE CIVIL SECRETARIAT , DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE , PUNJAB CHANDIGARH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : IN PERSON For the Respondent : For Respondent no.1 NEMO
For Respondent no.2 Mr Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate
Dated : 24 Jan 2020 ORDER
One of the petitioners is present in person who states that his counsel is unable to come from Delhi, hence, adjournment is sought. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 is present and states that he is putting his appearance. Circuit benches are being organised to help consumers so that their case may be disposed of locally and they need not come to Delhi. From this angle, I perused the file. It is seen that the brief facts of the case are that the complainant has got sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- and obtained a loan of Rs.3,90,000/- from opposite party no.1 for the construction of Rural Godown under the NABARD Scheme. The opposite party no. 2 was to pay the subsidy on the above amount and the OP no.1 was to submit the case for subsidy to OP No.2. After availing the loan, the complainant allegedly constructed the godown as per the specifications. A joint committee inspected the rural godown and made a report with regard to the godown of the complainant that the same was not constructed as per the specifications of the NABARD. The complainants were intimated about this vide letter dated 30.01.2006. The complainant's case has been that the inspection was not correct as no opportunity was given of being heard before rejecting their claim of subsidy.
2. The complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum with the following prayer:
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present complaint may kindly be accepted and the opposite parties may kindly be directed to release the amount of subsidy along with interest at the rate of 1% per annum from the date the same was due for payment till its actual payment and further the opposite party may also be directed to pay the compensation on account of harassment and mental agony to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
3. The District Forum, however, dismissed the complaint as complainants have not themselves completed the work as per terms and conditions of advanced loan and taking of subsidy as per report, thus complainants are not entitled to any subsidy.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the petitioner/ complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA no. 1331 of 2009. The State Commission vide its order dated 21.08.2013, dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant. At the time of inspection it was found that there was no complete godown in existence and also it was found that it was an old incomplete structure which was proved on record through the inspection report.
5. Hence, the present revision petition.
6. From the facts of the case and from the prayer of the complaint, it is clear that the main issue to be decided in the present case is about the release of amount of subsidy. The issue of subsidy cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum as has been held by the National Commission in the case of Chaudhary Ashok Yadav vs The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and Anr., Revision petition no.4894 of 2012 decided on 08.02.2013, wherein it has been held that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a 'consumer', as the subsidy is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and his remedy does not lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by filing a complaint and that he can seek relief from a civil court, or some other forum, as per law.
7. Based on the judgment of this Commission in the case of Chaudhary Ashok Yadav vs The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and Anr. (Supra), I am of the view that the issue of subsidy cannot be decided by this Commission as the subsidy seeker is not a consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum and the State Commission have rightly dismissed the complaint. In these circumstances, I do not find any prudence in waiting for the counsel to argue the matter on some other date as it would be unnecessarily prolonging the period of litigation. Hence, the request for adjournment is rejected.
8. It is further seen that both the fora below have given concurrent finding of fact that the godown was not complete and the construction was not as per specification. Against the concurrent finding of facts, the scope under the revision petition is quite limited and facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 as follows:
"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."
9. On the basis of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition no. 1109 of 2014 is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the civil court, if so advised. The time taken before the District Forum, State Commission and this Commission will not be considered for limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER