ORDER :

Mr. G.P. Sahoo, Member-Since both these appeals have been preferred against order dated 5.10.2015 passed by the Dist. Forum, Deogarh in C.D Case No. 08 of 2015 so both these appeals are heard altogether and are disposed of by this common order. Parties as described in the original C.D. Case are also described here in the same format.

2. Case of the complainant who was the appellant in F.A. No. 3B of 2076 was that he being an educated unemployed person decided to set up a small diary firm under Diary & Poultry v. Capital Funds-Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme(in short DEDS) laid down by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD in short). Being impleaded himself through the Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Odisha for his livelihood, he applied to O.P.3 in this context and being satisfied after going through all the relevant documents and examining feasibility etc. O.P.3 (Veterinary Asst. Surgeon) forwarded his 1oan application to O.P.2 namely Sambalpur District Co-op. Central Bank Deogarh Branch (in short Bank). The said bank agreed to provide loan amount of Rs. 90,000 on mortgage of land documents. Accordingly Secretary of Loimura Co-op. Society (O.P.1) issued land pass book detailing the loan amount and repayment schedule in favour of himself. It has been further contended by the complainant that during sanction of loan proposal, the O.Ps. had assured to release 33.33% subsidy amount on total cost of project as per guidelines of the NABARD vide its circular No. 186/TSD-03/2010 observing all instructions contained therein. Complainant purchased two Nos. of cows and the VAS after examining the cows issued fitness certificate and forwarded to O.P No. 2. Even if several requests were made and complainant has approached the O.Ps. for release of subsidy amount, they maintained silence. The complainant has repaid the total loan amount and Bank has closed the loan account in the name of the complainant. Complainant had long relationship with the Society and he was never defaulter any kind of assistance. The VAS also during identification process had clarified that no collateral security is to be made to the financing bank for loan amount of Rs. 1 lakh under DEDS of NABARD. But during the sanction process, O.P.2 demanded security and obtained mortgage of the land along with unfilled, undated signed cheques from the complainant. The late husband of the complainant was forced and agreed to it at the material time. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. 1 and 2 for not releasing the subsidy amount and not returning the Khatian, so she has filed the complaint with prayer for release of subsidy amount of 33.33% of the total cost of project and return of Khatian and signed undated, unfilled cheques collected as collateral security, refund of extra charges collected contradictory to the guidelines of NABARD and to pay Rs. 5 lakh towards compensation for mental agony and harassment along with Rs. 50,000 as litigation cost. The complainant has relied on 4I documents filed along with complaint petition.

3. O.P. No. 1 i.e. the Service Society filed written version and contended that it had never assured to pay any subsidy to the complainant since subsidy is being paid by NABARD. The O.P. No. 1 uses to apply release of subsidy amount to NABARD through O.P.2 and in the instant case it has been done. Once the subsidy is received from NABARD, it will be paid to the complainant. At no point of time the O.P.1 asked the deceased husband of the complainant to repay the total loan amount, rather had advised to repay the same excluding the subsidy amount. As per the norms of the society loan is only sanctioned after mortgage of loan documents or fixed deposit. With regard to non-returning of mortgage land documents, it has been submitted by the society that on the same title deed complainant’s husband had availed loan from the society and has not yet repaid the loan amount in full and fi