K. MURUGESAN Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, Advocate, for the appellant, Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent-1 and Mr. Satyapal Singh, Advocate, for respondent-2.

(2.) K. Murugesan (the complainant) has filed above appeal from the order of Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, dtd. 26/4/2023 passed in CC/180/2016, dismissing the complaint on the finding that the complainant is not a 'consumer' as he had availed the services of the opposite parties free of charge and the complaint is not maintainable.

(3.) K. Murugesan (the appellant) filed in CC/18/2016, for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.9828497.00 as compensation (as on 31/8/2016), for his revenue loss for about six years. The appellant stated that the Central Government of India launched the scheme for motivation of self-employment generation as well as eradication of unemployment through the 'Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme (for short the scheme) and invited the first generation entrepreneurial aspirants to execute the project. The scheme laid down guidelines to facilitate the concerned entrepreneurs to avail the financial assistance upto Rs.25.00 lacs (10% of which was contributed by the beneficiary, 55% was advanced by sponsoring Bank as loan and 35% subsidy of the government). Khadi and Village Industries Commission (the KVIC) is Nodal Agency at national level. State Khadi and Village Industries Board, District Industry Centres and the bank implement the scheme at the state level. In the Nilgiris District, the project under the scheme was funded by M/s. Vijaya Bank, Coonoor branch in the year 2010. The complainant was an employee of Non-uniform Civil Administrative Cadre-Account of the defence. The complainant took voluntarily retirement from his service for the motivation of execution of an agro based MSME project under the scheme as a priority sector of the Government at backward rural area, The complainant executed an agro based Fruits and Vegetables Preservation Industry in the name of 'Pasumai Hi-Tech Agro Industry' at SF No.628, Kanacombai, Thummanatti (PO), Udhagamandalam (TK), District The Nilgiris-643102, investing huge amount out of which Rs.25.00 lacs availed under the scheme (10% of which was contributed by the complainant, 55% was advanced by Vijaya Bank as loan and 35% subsidy of the government) and started production since December, 2010. However, the KVIC did not provide an initial marketing support as per guidelines, despite his repeated requests and the directions of the competent authority. The products of the complainant expired as it could not be marketed before its expiry date and the complainant suffered huge loss. Apart from it, Vijaya Bank also mis-utilised the amount of subsidy. The programme provides for rehabilitation of sick industries as per guidelines of RBI for rehabilitation of sick small scale industries. The complainant, therefore, applied to Vijaya Bank for sanction of more loan for rehabilitation of his industry. The Regional Manager, Vijaya Bank asked to give proposal for loan to the branch office. The complainant then gave his proposal vide letter dtd. 15/11/2012 to the branch office. The Branch Manager, vide letter dtd. 6/12/2012, asked to give details/statements, which were given and charged for fee for it. The title deeds and other documents were already pledged with the bank. However, Branch Manager rejected his application for sanction of rehabilitation loan, vide letter dtd. 10/2/2013 for a silly reason that they had projected 6 mobile outlets for sale of the products of the complainant but it could not be sold. The complainant raised his objection to the said letter to the higher authorities. The higher authorities instead of examining the objection on merit, kept it pending for a long time and ultimately advised to give a fresh proposal for grant of loan. The complainant then gave another letter dtd. 23/1/2014, for sanction of rehabilitation loan and submitted details/statements on 24/1/2014 to the branch office of Vijaya Bank. The application was kept on pending for a long period. After about two years, Credit Manager, Regional Office, Vijaya Bank, Coimbatore asked the complainant to give a fresh application then a fresh application along with details/statements was given on 31/1/2016. Credit Manager put a condition upon the complainant to achieve 20% projected sales and apprise about the performance. The complainant achieved the target and apprise the branch office vide letter dtd. 10/4/2016. The complainant also wrote a letter dtd. 10/4/2016 to Reserve Bank of India, RPCD, Chennai, apprising the efforts made by him for grant of rehabilitation loan from 2012. Reserve Bank of India, vide letter dtd. 23/5/2016, directed the bank to take appropriate action on the application of the complainant. Thereafter, Vijaya Bank conducted a viable study of the project of the complainant. Regional Manager, vide letter dtd. 19/7/2016, informed the Reserve Bank of India that the project was technically and commercially non-viable. Assistant General Manager, Vijaya Bank gave his report dtd. 21/7/2016 and by assigning some silly reasons, submitted that the project was technically and commercially non-viable. The complainant, vide letter dtd. 22/7/2016 explained each and every objection, as mentioned in the report. Vijaya Bank throughout violated the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India dtd. 16/1/2002, issued for rehabilitation of small scale industries. Reserve Bank of India, vide its letter dtd. 25/7/2016 directed Regional Office of the Bank to form a committee as per guidelines dtd. 17/3/2016 for an immediate injection for rehabilitation of sick industries established under the scheme. Thereafter, a joint meeting of the complainant with the Regional Manager, Assistant General Manager, the Chief Manager, the MSME Manager and the Credit Manager was held on 30/8/2016 at the Regional Office of the bank, in which, the complainant explained each and every aspect of viability of his project. But ignoring the explanation of the complainant the report dtd. 21/7/2016 was accepted and the application for sanction of the rehabilitation loan was rejected. The complainant, through RBI, wrote a letter dtd. 20/9/2016 to Vijaya Bank to form the committee as per guidelines but no action was taken.