STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/5/A/393/2019 (Against the Order dated 21 January 2025 in Complaint No.

null of the null)

Punjab National Bank .......Appellant(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - Branch Patanjali Yogpeeth P.O. Patanjali BahacdrabadNCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

Versus Sh. Krishna Goswami .......Respondent(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Ramesh Goshwami R/o Daulatpur Post PatanjaliNCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MS. KUMKUM RANI, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. B. S. MANRAL, MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT :

Sh. Anurag Nautiyal Proxy For Sh. Nishant Chaturvedi (Advocate)

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

Sh. Krishna Goswami, In-Person Dated: 21 January 2025 FINAL ORDER ORDER (Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.07.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 321 of 2017, styled as Sh. Krishna Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that for the purposes of animal husbandry and dairy business, the respondent / complainant had taken loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the appellant / opposite party bearing loan account No. 487100AG00000394, in regard to which subsidy of Rs. 1,25,000/- was to be granted to the complainant by NABARD. The subsidy was to be applied by the appellant. The complainant was regularly depositing the loan installments. The complainant was assured by the bank that it will do all the formalities from its own level for receiving the subsidy and after crediting the amount of subsidy in the loan account, the remaining loan amount would be received by the bank in installments. In this regard, the complainant was assured that the amount of subsidy would be received soon. Inspite of depositing the loan installments, the bank is compelling the complainant to deposit the entire loan amount. Despite asking, no document was supplied by the bank to the complainant in regard to applying for subsidy. The complainant approached NABARD, Regional Office, Dehradun in regard to non-receipt of subsidy amount, whereupon the complainant was told that no action was taken by the appellant for receiving the amount of subsidy, hence the subsidy was not granted. The complainant also sought information under The Right to Information Act, 2005, which transpired that since no action was taken by the appellant from its level for receiving the subsidy, therefore, the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- was not granted. A notice dated 15.09.2017 was sent to the bank, which was not replied. An extra amount of Rs. 90,000/- was paid to the bank from 2013 to September, 2017. After adjusting the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-, an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- was to be repaid to the bank, but on account of non- adjustment of subsidy amount, the complainant had to pay excess amount to the bank, which caused him mental, physical and financial agony. Therefore, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission.

3. The appellant / opposite party filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that the bank had sent the required form dated 18.05.2012 to NABARD for receiving the subsidy. After sanction and receipt of subsidy of NABARD, the same is credited in the concerned account and in case the subsidy is not sanctioned by the NABARD, the same can not be given by the bank. On account of non- receipt of subsidy, the bank had again applied with NABARD on 07.09.2017, which fact is known to the complainant. It was further pleaded that the complainant; his father and brother are living jointly and the complainant is illegally trying to avail the subsidy because as per the guidelines, in the event of having more than 10 animals in a family, the borrower is not entitled to the subsidy. There has not been an