Case nº Revision Petition No. 1203 Of 2017, (Against the Order dated 13/02/2017 in Appeal No. 358/2016 of the State Commission Rajasthan) of NCDRC Cases, May 22, 2017 (case National Bank For Agriculture And Rural Development (Nabard) & Anr. Vs Arif Khan & Anr.)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Rajesh P., Advocate
PresidentMr. D.K. Jain,President and Mrs. M. Shreesha,Member
Resolution DateMay 22, 2017
Issuing OrganizationNCDRC Cases


  1. These three Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (for short "NABARD") and one of its Regional Offices, Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 in the Complaints, are directed against a common order dated 13.02.2017, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 356, 357 and 358 of 2016. By the impugned order, while affirming the finding recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Sawai Madhopur (for short "the District Forum") in its order dated 16.06.2015 in Original Complaints No. 415, 451 & 414 of 2013 to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of NABARD in not extending the assistance to the Complainants, releasing to them subsidy under the Pilot Scheme, styled as "Venture Capital Scheme for Dairy and Poultry", the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by NABARD.

  2. In the first instance, while accepting the Complaints filed by some Entrepreneurs, who had raised small loans from Bank of Baroda, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaints, for the purpose of establishing dairy and poultry business on a small-scale for earning their livelihood, the District Forum had directed NABARD to release to each of the Complainants the subsidy amounting to `1,66,650/-, `1,66,650/-, `125,000/- respectively in each of the cases. The District Forum had also directed NABARD to pay a sum of `10,000/- each as compensation for the mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, suffered by the Complainants, on account of non-release of the aforesaid amounts towards subsidy, as also the litigation expenses, quantified at `5,000/- each.

  3. Learned Counsel appearing for NABARD has strenuously urged that both the Forums below have failed to appreciate that the Applications filed by the Complainants for release of the subsidy amounts were not forwarded by the Bank to NABARD through proper channel and the same were also not on the prescribed format. It is also urged that since the services provided by NABARD in granting subsidy under the aforesaid Scheme are without any consideration, the Entrepreneurs could not be treated as the ''consumers'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

  4. Having carefully perused the documents on record, including the object of the Scheme, viz. to generate more jobs by...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT