KARNATAKA STATE FINANCAL vs H.S.K.M. CHISTI

Petitioner/Opposite Party being aggrieved by impugned order dated 3.12.2008, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short, ''State Commission'') in (First Appeal No.1310 of 2008) has filed present revision petition.

Brief facts are, that Respondent/Complainant established a cattle feed manufacturing small scale industry and had taken loan of Rs.8.00 lakhs from the Petitioner. There was subsidy from the government towards this loan to the extent of Rs.3,02.700/- as per the sanction order dated 20.3.2000. Later on, it was reduced to Rs.2,52,250/-. Respondent had paid Rs.3.5 lakhs towards the loan till 2004. In 2004, he closed the industry for various reasons and was not able to discharge the loan. Therefore, he sought for application of O.T.S. scheme to clear the entire loan on 14.7.2004. Petitioner directed him to deposit 20% of the said amount. Accordingly, respondent deposited initial amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Thereafter, respondent paid total sum of Rs.5,48,000/- towards said O.T.S. Scheme and requested the petitioner to adjust the subsidy amount of Rs.2,52,000/- for the remaining amount of O.T.S. Scheme. Petitioner released Rs.1,26,125/- on 29.3.2005 and another sum of Rs.1,26,125/- was received by petitioner on 13.09.2005. But petitioner refused to adjust the same. Again petitioner issued final demand notice to pay the entire

sum along with delayed period interest by 31.08.2006. Though, the demand was illegal but respondent was constrained to pay Rs.2,52,000/- and delayed interest of Rs.69,258/-. The petitioner gave the clearance certificate. Despite government order dated 24.5.2006, petitioner illegally collected the amount, which it is bound to release the subsidy amount to the respondent directly. Petitioner has no right to adjust the subsidy amount towards the arrears pending earlier to O.T.S. Scheme. Hence, respondent sought refund of subsidy amount Rs.2,52,00/- and interest of Rs.91,925/- on the subsidy amount from 21.09.2005 and also refund of delayed period interest of Rs.69,250/- paid by him. Respondent also sought interest of Rs.13,120/- on the said amount from 31.08.2006@ 17.5% p.a. and Rs.1.00 lakhs for mental agony and Rs.1.00 lakh for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost.

Petitioner in its written statement has admitted the sanction of loan of Rs.8.00 lakhs. It is stated, that respondent became defaulter in payment of loan installments and later requested to close the loan account under O.T.S. Scheme and the same was extended on payment of Rs.8.00 lakhs within 30 days from 1.4.2005. But respondent failed to pay the O.T.S. amount and delayed period interest. Thereafter, loan account was closed on 23.09.2006 with sacrifice by waiver of interest of Rs.9,24,583/-. As per the O.T.S. policy, petitioner has adjusted the subsidy of Rs.2,52,250/- which was received in two installments each, on 23.09.2005 and 13.9.2005 respectively. The respondent was silent till the closure of loan account and release of security documents. Thereafter, he insisted to release the state subsidy, stating not to adjust the subsidy towards sacrificed amount. Since, subsidy amount was released prior to 2.1.2006, the subsidy amount was adjusted to the sacrificed amount as per prevailing norms. The request of respondent was rejected by the Board on 27.11.2007. Therefore, respondent is not entitled to any amount claimed. The Government order dated 24.5.2006, is not applicable to the subsidy released prior to the government order. Hence, question of adjustment of subsidy amount towards the O.T.S. Scheme amount or release of the subsidy amount to respondent''s unit does not arise at all and complaint is not maintainable.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya (for short, ''District Forum'') vide order dated 11.04.2008, partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund Rs1,26,125/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from 13.09.2005 to 30.08.2006 with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

Being aggrieved respondent filed appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.

Petitioner filed this revision on 27.02.2009. Along with it, an application seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order was also filed. In para No.3 of this application, it has been averred; " The petitioner has not sent the certified copy even though it is obtained on 02.01.2009 since there is urgency in the matter, the petitioner is filing this revision petition with exemption application. Meanwhile, the petitioner has asked for certified copy and it was be filed as soon as it received. This revision petition is being filed with copy true copy of the impugned judgment and order."

As per prescribed provisions under the Act, no revision petition can be entertained, unless it is accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the State Commission challenged in the

revision. Present revision was filed on 27.2.2009. Till date, no certified copy of impugned order dated 03.12.2008 passed by the State Commission has been placed on record by the respondent. Therefore, present revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone.

Even otherwise petitioner has no case on merits also, in view of order passed by the State Commission and relevant portion of it states; " When the OP has not disputed that the complainant has paid the entire amount as per the one time settlement and also has not disputed the interest paid by the complainant for the delay payment, in our view the District Forum is right in directing the Ops to pay Rs.1,26,125/- with interest at 10% per annum. Accordingly, we pass the following: O R D E R Appeal is dismissed ."

Accordingly, present revision stand dismissed for non-filing of the certified copy of the impugned order as well as on merits.

No order as to cost.