zOFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAGATSINGHPUR
PRESENT:- SRI S.N.MISHRA,PRESIDENT.
A N D
SRI B.C. SWAIN, MEMBERS.
MRS. M.M.RATH, MEMBERS.
Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2009
Date of Filing: -06.06.2009
Date of Judgment: -19.10.2009
Diptimayee parida
w/o-Manas kumar parida
vill-Arilo
Po-Sampur
Ps-Balikuda
Dist-Jagatsinghpur
……………………….complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager
United Bank of India
Dihasahi Branch
At-Dihasahi(champahat)
Po-Dihasahi
Via-Tiran,Ps-Erasama
Dist-Jagatsinghpur
2. General Manager
Dist-Industry Center
Jagatsinghpur
At/Po/Dist-Jagatsinghpur
………………………..Opp.parties
In short the allegation of complainant is that being selected to avail facilities available to her under PMEGP 2008-2009 scheme for running an automatic chuda mill her project stood approved as special women category by selection committee i.e. D.T.F. on PMEGP as such vide letter 195 dtd.20.01.09 , the DIC, Jagatsinghpur intimated to the branch Manager,UBI, Dihasahi branch to sponsor loan proposal within period stipulated or to return the proposal in case the loan proposal is not possible with the reasons for further action at it’s end. The branch Manager has not considered the matter for months together despite repeated persuasion for which a legal notice dtd. 05.03.09 got served on it but of no response. The husband of the complainant said to have collected information from DIC,Jagatsinghpur under RTI Act that vide letter dtd.11.03.09 to DIC her proposal has been returned on unreasonable grounds such as , the petitioners is a house wife and studied up to class VII, in fact , she is plucked matriculate, having no technical knowledge besides lacks sufficient homestead land for construction of a shed. According to complainant her father –in-law is in occupation of vast homestead land and viable of scheme is potential as paradeep port is only 35 kms. Away from her place besides good communication made available to cuttack malgodown. It is further alleged that arrogant belated report of O.P. bank at the instance of inimical persons of complainant has deprived her of availing facility hence she sustained mental agony financial loss as such seeked redressal within scope of this Act.
The General Manager , DIC, Jagatsinghpur (O.P. No.2) instead of filling written version has submitted a parawise comment which has no leg to stand hence not accepted for purpose of this proceeding. Ultimately O.P.No.2 is proceeded exparte due to non participation despite it’s knowledge of this proceeding.
The Branch Manager, UBI, Dihasahi Branch (O.P.No.1) submitted written version which speaks in short that this complaint has been undervalued being valued at Rs.50,000/- despite due knowledge of complainant of it’s value at Rs.24,85,000/- as such this complaint is not to be entertained within meaning of this Act. It is contended by answering O.P.No.1 that complainant had nothing to do with such scheme forwarded by DIC (O.P.No.2) seeking opinion as to it’s viability besides such scheme on proper enquiry and consultation as found not viable and feasible for production and marketing of 900 quintals of chuda and 500 quintals husk per month , vide letter annexed-1 has been returned to DIC,Jagatsinghpur (O.P.No.2). Disputing allegations alleged in paragraph 1 to 4 it is stated that complainant being an untrained person, besides due to want of huge demand in local marked of such production this proposal has been returned to DIC to avoid risk to finance as such no deficiency in service is caused so as to be amiable within meaning of this Act.
Out of aforesaid pleadings of both parties it is evident to be a case of non sanction of loan under PMEGP 2008-09 favoring complainant. Out of letter dtd. 29.01.09 of DIC to bank it is further transpired that a scheme worth Rs.24,85,000/- has been submitted before O.P.Bank for financial assistance to complainant. In said letter towards last portion it is revealed to have been incorporated that the said proposal if not sanctioned should be returned to DIC at an earliest for further actions. The O.P.Bank in receipt of said proposal seems to have proceeded with the same and found non viable of scheme and unsafe of the loan hence returned the proposal to DIC vide letter dtd. 11.03.09 stating the grounds there in. therefore, the O.P.Bank can not be held to have caused deficiency in service in any manner. On the contrary the DIC in receipt of the letter dtd. 11.03.09 seems to have neither took any further steps to assist complainant nor informed her about refusal of her loan by bank on the grounds stated therein. If DIC would have acted diligently definitely such a proceeding would have been avoided , as such, DIC is found to have caused deficiency in service hence accountable within this act. So DIC should find out a way to fulfill the scheme of the complainant but not the O.P.Bank.
It has been rightly pointed out by the O.P. bank taking advantage of letter dtd. 29.08.09 of DIC that complainant has under valued her complaint to attract the jurisdiction of this Forum. In stead letter the scheme seems to have been valued at Rs.24,85,000/- but complainant has valued her complaint only at Rs.50,000/- for the purpose jurisdiction and fees. Such practice is not permissible within scope of this Act. That apart, the complainant also failed to show with evidence that she has availed / hired the services of O.Ps. for consideration in any manner at any point of time.
Taking all these evidence available on record to active consideration we are not inclined to proceed with this complaint. However if the project of complainant according DIC is required to be implemented , then DIC may proceeded on its way in the process of law prescribed under such scheme.
ORDER
In the result this complaint is dismissed on contest against O.P.Bank and exparte against DIC, Jagatsinghpur with aforesaid observation but without cost.
Serve a copy of this on DIC , Jagatsinghpur at the cost of the complainant for reference.
Pronounced in the open forum on this 19th day of October,2009.
Smt.M.M.Rath B.C.Swain S.N.Mishra
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT