Fatehgarh Sahib District Commission Holds NABARD Liable For Failure To Provide Promised Subsidy
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab) bench of Sanjeev Batra (President), Shivani Bhargava (Member) and Manjit Singh Bhinder (Member) held NABARD liable for deficiency in services for failure to provide a Rs. 70,000/- subsidy to the Complainant after he took a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from ICICI Bank. As per the loan agreement, NABARD had promised...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab) bench of Sanjeev Batra (President), Shivani Bhargava (Member) and Manjit Singh Bhinder (Member) held NABARD liable for deficiency in services for failure to provide a Rs. 70,000/- subsidy to the Complainant after he took a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from ICICI Bank. As per the loan agreement, NABARD had promised to provide the said subsidy to the Complainant within six months of the first instalment.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant held an account with the ICICI Bank, wherein he availed a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-. This loan was structured to be repaid in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 6,782/-. Upon disbursement, ICICI Bank deducted Rs. 24,780/- as insurance charges and Rs. 1,180/- for other fees, disbursing Rs. 1,74,040/- to the Complainant. Additionally, the bank assured him of a Rs. 70,000/- subsidy from NABARD, to be provided within six months of the first instalment. Despite the Complainant making 26 instalment payments totalling Rs. 1,76,332/-, the promised subsidy was delivered. Repeated requests by the Complainant to ICICI Bank and NABARD for the subsidy were met with postponements and refusals, causing frustration and allegedly impacting his CIBIL score. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (“District Commission”) against ICICI Bank and NABARD.
In response, ICICI Bank argued that the subsidy provision is contingent on NABARD's actions, not within its direct control, as indicated by documents signed by the Complainant during the loan application process. NABARD didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission perused the bank statements of the Complainant. It noted that despite the Complainant fulfilling his repayment obligations by making 26 instalments, he did not receive the promised subsidy amount of Rs. 70,000/- from NABARD. The District Commission referred to another instance involving a person from the same village, who availed a similar loan and received a subsidy of Rs. 35,000/- from NABARD.
Therefore, the District Commission held that NABARD was obligated to provide the subsidy. Consequently, NABARD was held liable for deficiency in services. The complaint against ICICI Bank was dismissed. Consequently, the District Commission directed NABARD to issue a detailed order within 30 days clarifying whether the subsidy is payable to the Complainant under its standing Rules and Regulations. The District Commission also directed NABARD to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant for the inconvenience caused to him.
Case Title: Kuldeep Singh vs ICICI Bank and Ors.
Case Number: CC/91/2021
Date of Decision: 20.05.2024