CONFIDENTIAL
WAREHOUSE SUBSIDY RELATED MATTERS
1) There is a communication gap between Nabard and Financing
Bank/Parties. Actual status of subsidy is not known to the
borrowers/bankers and if there is a delay due to incomplete documents
it is not pointed out timely nor it could be rectified timely. This gives
rise to complaints with CVO/CVC and PG Portal.
2) Nabard is intimating to the Banks casewise deficiencies but it is by email of various officers who get transferred and e-mails are not
attended. This is causing delay of one year and more. Nabard must
develop as system of sending written communication to the Bank/s
under intimation to parties so that timely rectification could be done.
3) It is a fact that inward system of Nabard is not proper. Subsidy Claims
are submitted by Banks n number of times and they remain unreceived by Nabard. Even in some cases where there is hand delivery
of documents at Nabard Office, documents are reported not received.
Banks/Parties have no alternative but to continue resubmitting the
documents. This is one major lacunae in working which is root cause of
complaints and party assumes that there is foul play in inward of
proposals at Nabard to change priority in subsidy sanction.
4) It is experienced that non-receipt is mainly reported in cases involving
subsidy amount of Rs 1.00 Crores and above for unknown reasons.
5) There is no proper information feedback to the customers from Nabard.
Most of the time the reply is ask your bankers. If the Bank itself in in
dark how can they guide the party in timely receipt of subsidy ?
Especially branches located in far off areas are totally handicapped and
their subsidy claims are pending for years together.
6) There is game of repeated queries going on in Nabard. Same affidavits,
documents and undertakings are obtained again and again. Raising
queries appears to be a very effective tool to delay the identified
proposals. This is first delayed by sending queries to obsolete e-mails
and then after several months sending it to proper address. Again it is
followed by non-receipt of reply from Bank or incomplete
documentation as they say. This will delay a selected proposal by more
than 2 years causing him substantial loss of interest and financial
harassment. It is worth mentioning here that some subsidy claims are
pending with Nabard for want of information from branches/banks for
more than 3/4 years.
Please image the plight of the customer who is waiting for sanction for
years.
-27) Banks were earlier fixating the term loan installments after excluding
the subsidy amount presuming that the subsidy shall be received
timely. However, in past two years there have been delays of 1 year to
2 year in receipt of subsidy and they have now started drawing
repayment plans including subsidy for warehouse loans. This is causing
undue financial burden on the promoters and many loan accounts are
going out of order requiring restructuring/rescheduling on installments.
Now the position is that the loans which were supposed to be repaid in
9 years are either getting out of order due to non-receipt of subsidy or
they are getting closed in 4 years due to overpayment if subsidy is
received.
8) It appears that this sensitive department is handled by some very
junior officers who do not have exposure and expertise in claim
settlement. Sometimes they are sanctioning cases so fast and
sometimes they raise large number of queries and go deep down in the
veracity of sanction itself. In fact, maturity level required in sanctioning
indicates that the Department is guided by young officers who have all
the technical knowledge but do not have a foresight to sanction
smaller cases even with little deviations and focus on large cases
where Subsidy Flow is huge. In many sanctions minor mistakes are
inflated and cases are withheld and in many cases major mistakes are
overlooked. The approach of the banker in solving problems is not
there. In short no uniform system is adopted in sanctioning of subsidy
claims. Those who are lodging complaints are especially targeted and
delayed. The team should be guided by a Senior Official who has a
foresight of clearing smaller proposals even with little deviation so as
to avoid undue pressure on Nabard.
At present the Appraisal Committee is not looking into these reasons
for delay and therefore substantial backlog is created. The backlog
should be at the Govt. end and Nabard end but due to slow speed of
sanction, entire backlog is with Nabard.
9) There should be regular transfer of officers from Subsidy to other
departments. At present the same set of officers are sitting for past
many years who have developed liking and disliking from
customers/banks/corporate/CAs and there working is no more
unbiased. Working is shifted towards either helping or fixing a
particular client/CA/Bank Manager etc which is so dangerous for
smooth working and good image which Nabard carries. It is
unfortunate that due to the biased working of a few, large backlog is
created and it is turning in complaints/representations to
CVO/CVC/Parliament etc.
-310)
Scrutiny of subsidy claims is ad-hoc and casual. Three identical
proposals of the same family were given three different treatments
from Dewas District. Sanction intimation of final subsidy claim should
be conveyed invariably to the Bank/Parties which is not being done.
This letter will help the Bank in dealing with the auditors and timely
review of the proposal. In case of delay in communication from Nabard
undue pressure is created on the party leading to complaints.
11)
Everybody understands that delay in receipt of subsidy is on
account of Govt of India but prior to Govt there is a long delay at
Nabard itself. Govt stopped subsidy from 05.08.2014 but Nabard kept
pending proposals since December /January 2014 which are still
pending for sanction. Why this delay has taken place in processing?
Who has supervised this whole process ? Loan cases by Banks in
2012,2013,2014 are still awaiting sanction which could have been
sanctioned very well before imposition of embargo by Govt of India.
This internal working must be examined.
12)
To quote a live example, a leading Eye Specialist of India running
a large Eye Hospital has been sanctioned loan by SBI Guna Branch for
Warehouse & Grading under AMIGS Scheme. His JMI Inspection has
taken place in May , 14 but till today his final claim is pending. (Shree
Ram Warehousing Co Dr Vishnu Jobanputra). His large amount of fixed
deposits are withheld by the Bank and all his future plans are
disturbed. Nabard is asking same documents again and again and is
keeping the proposal pending even now. What impression such a senior
person shall carry about Nabard? His Number is 97540-42687. Why
papers are being repeatedly asked ?
13)
Syndicate Bank has submitted twice detailed subsidy claim of
M/s Pranami Grameen Bhandaran Singrauli to Nabard from their
Regional Office Bhopal. It is reported lost ad Bank is advised to
resubmit. Singrauli is 1000 kms away and it is really harassing to
prepare and resubmit same proposal again and again. Ultimately
somewhere these documents have gone.
14)
In case of Gurukripa Warehouse, Kumbhraj Dist Guna subsidy
was wrongly sanctioned to State Bank of India Kumbharaj Branch
under AMIGS Scheme intead of RGS. When mistake was pointed out,
letter of withdrawl was issued but no remedy is shown for claiming it
under RGS.
15)
In case of Maa Sharda Warehouse, Hatipilia Dist Dewas (MP) the
claim was lodged in January 2015 but it was not considered assuming a
general case while the case was for SC Category and they were
entitled to subsidy even during stoppage. When the mistake was
pointed out, instead of accepting the mistake, reply was that the
documents are incomplete.
-4-
After repeated follow up of the party and bank, (Allahabad Bank) the
deficiencies were pointed out by discovering them after writing this
letter. The proposal is still in abeyance and party has made
representation to the SC Welfare Commission for the lapse. The
borrowers are ingnorant of rules but they are putting their hard earned
money and become victim of this paper game.
16)
One and just one proposal sanctioned by SBBJ Indore to M/s BK
Agrawal Storage House is pending for sanction since JMI in January,
2014. Papers are being repeated asked and sent by the said Bank.
17)
Two proposals sanctioned by J & K Bank, Indore to Ruchi Global
Ltd are kept pending for want of papers past two years. Same papers
are being asked again and again.
