West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/84/2016

Sri Paresh Chandra Ghosh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1) Deputy Director of Agriculture(Admn), - Opp.Party(s)

Shib Sagar Dhar

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

Dr. Soumen Sikder_   Member

This is a complaint filed by Shri Paresh Ghosh against Dy. Director of Agriculture (Admn) at Suri, Birbhum and others stating that he purchased a tractor under the scheme of financial support scheme for farm mechanization (FSSM). Under this scheme the farmers get subsidy for purchase of the Agril. Implements. The complainant applied for such subsidy and the said application was approved by O.P No.1. Accordingly the O.P 1 issued a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of the complainant in favour of Kishan Credit Card of IDBI Bank. Thereafter the complainant came to know that the said cheque amounting to Rs. 1 lakh in the name of the complainant has not been encashed as the complainant purchased the tractor being Model No. D142RX 45HP in place of Model No. D135RXSC(540) S3 MECH 13.628-01BSSB mentioned on the cheque as per approval list. The complainant requested the O.P No. 1 and 2 to make a correction to the said cheque issued by O.P No.1 so that the complainant can enjoy the subsidy amount. But all his efforts were in vain.

O.P No.1 Dy. Director of Agriculture (Admn) at Suri Birbhum and O.P No.2, Agricultural Development Officer, Illambazar Block, Illambazar, Birbhum appeared and jointly contested by filing W.V. They stated in written version that the complainant applied for purchase of agricultural machinery before the O.Ps specifically mentioning the name of the brand / make and model, Sonalika D135RXSC(540)S3MECH 13.628-01BSSB and the name of the financing bank HDFC Bank, Suri Branch and submitted the same along with Xerox copies of duly signed voter I.D Card, Ration Card, Passbook of Kishan Credit Card A/c (KCC A/C) etc. The same was recommended and approved by the Authority on the body of the application. Accordingly, the subsidy amount was released to the Branch Manager, IDBI, Sriniketan Branch in favour of Paresh Ghosh. The cheque was issued on the basis of application choice and quotation attached Sonalika D135RXSC(540)S3MECH 13.628-01BSSB. But at the time of encashment it was found that the complainant had already purchased a tractor being Model No. Sonalika D142RX 45HP, which was old one and not matched with the tractor as mentioned in quotation or approval list.

O.P No.3 Branch Manager, IDBI, Suri, Birbhum did not contest. The case has been heard ex parte against O.P No.3.

Both parties filed certain document along with evidence in chief on affidavit.

Upon pleading of the parties following points are to be considered for discussion.

Points

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
3. Is complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

The points being interlinked each other are taken together for discussion.

The complainant is a farmer and a Kishan Credit Card Holder having No. 0878651100000514 under IDBI, Sriniketan Branch. He applied for subsidy of financial support scheme for farm mechanization and one time assistance to small and marginal farmers for purchase of small farm implements through proper channel on 04.03.2014. The same was approved and listed the complainant’s name for release of front ended subsidy by Dy. Director Agriculture (Admn), Birbhum (O.P No.2) vide memo No. 932 dated 05.06.2015. The cheque amounting to Rs. 1 lakh was issued in favour of Kishan Credit Card No. 0878651100000514 of IDBI Bank in the name of the complainant. Thus, O.P No.1, 2 and 3 are the service providers and the complainant is a consumer under them.

Admitted fact is that the application of the complainant was approved for financial support scheme for purchase of tractor. The complainant filled up the prescribed form as per terms and condition. Point No.9 of the particulars in the form is the statement of Agril. Implement to be purchased, where the complainant wrote the name of Brand/Make and Model Sonalika D135RXSC(540)S3MECH 13.628-01BSSB. In support of this particulars a quotation issued by M/s. Kanchan Engineering Works, Rampurhat, Birbhum was attached with the form. One of the salient features of the scheme was that the tractor as Agril.equipment must be of 20HP to 40HP (G.O. No. 741-NAB/2S-03/12(pt1)-annexure-1). The complainant fully knowing it mentioned the name of Brand/Make/Model on the form and a quotation was attached as supporting document. O.P No.1 approved the application form and issued a cheque of Rs. 1 lakh as subsidy in the name of the complainant. Upto this stage there is no dispute.

But the complainant stated that O.P No.3 did not encash the cheque. O.P No.1 and 2 in their written version stated that the complainant purchased a tractor name and style as “Sonalika D142RX 45HP” which was not matched with quotation. It is a violation of the terms and condition of the scheme because the tractor was of 45HP. They also raised objection that the same tractor was purchased before submission of application for FSSM which was also violation of terms and conditions.The complainant has filed the delivery challan of the tractor purchased by him. It shows that one No. Sonalika D142RX 45HP tractor being Engine No. 3100ELI33G358126F3 and chassis No. EZYSV3590000S3 with deluxe seat, multipoint hook and standard accessories has been received in good order and condition by the complainant. The challan issued to the name of Paresh Nath Ghosh S/o Lt. Biswanath Ghosh of Nachansa, Illambazar, Birbhum bears no date. The certificate of registration (issued in favour of Paresh Ghosh) of the said tractor shows registration No. WB53B 3225 and registration date 21^st Nov. 2013 being Engine No. 3100ELI33G358126F3 and chassis No. EZYSV3590000S3. That means the complainant purchased the tractor in question before 21.11.2013 i.e. two and ½ months before the date of application form for FSSM submitted by the complainant.

So it is clear to the Forum that the complainant violated the rules/terms and conditions of the scheme of FSSM for mechanization and gave false statement in two ways – 1) the complainant purchased the said tractor 2and ½ month before the date of application for FSSM where he mentioned that he would purchase a tractor as per quotation submitted along with application form and 2) he purchased the tractor of 45HP which was beyond 20HP to 40HP limit as specified in terms and condition. That is why the O.Ps did not allow the encashment of the cheque in question.

From the above discussion the Forum opines that the O.Ps did not have any deficiency in service regarding stop payment of the cheque issued in the name of the complainant for subsidy.

As the O.Ps have no deficiency in service there is no question of reliefs prayed by the complainant.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

                                                that C.F case No. 84/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P No.1and 2 and ex parte against the O.P No.3 without cost.

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.