DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No.05 of 2016
Dillip Kumar Karna, S/o.Parikhita Karna, R/o. Sankra, P.SBinka, District – Subarnapur.
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. The Branch Manager, Utkal Gramya Bank, Kaudiamunda Branch, P.O. Sankra, P.SBinka, District – Subarnapur.
2. The District Agriculture Officer, Sonepur P.O./P.S. – Sonepur, District – Subarnapur,
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for Complainant ………. Sri R.Agrawal
Advocate for the O.Ps. ………. Sri B.K.Dash
Present
Sri S.C.Nayak, President
Smt.S.Mishra, Lady Member
Date of Judgment Dt.09.03.2018
J U D G M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
This is complainant a cultivator has filed this consumer case alleging deficiency of service by the O.Ps.
The case of the complainant is that he was selected by the O.P. No.2 to get financial assistance in the shape of loan for purchase of tractor under Govt. subsidy and through his letter No.1224 dt.15.3.2015 recommended the name of the complainant to the branch of O.P. No.1 for sanctioning of loan in favour of the complainant.
As per the scheme the bank i.e. U.G.B. Kaudiamunda has to sanction loan amounting to Rs.4,80,000/- in favour of the complainant for purchase of tractor. After this the O.P. No.1 has to send subsidy claim application to O.P. No.2 who after receiving the same has to release the same in favo0ur of the complainant within one month.
The complainant submitted all relevant documents and deposited the margin money and there after, the bank sanctioned loan on 5.10.2015 and on the basis of loan the complainant purchased the tractor. After this the O.P. No.1 submitted subsidy claim application before the O.P. No.2 with proper signature of the complainant. But till yet the O.P. No.2 has not released the subsidy amount.
-: 2 :-
It is alleged that inspite of several written communication to O.P. No.1 and 2 and despite several letters of O.P. No.1 to O.P. No.2 the O.P. No.2 has not released the subsidy amount. He has also not communicated the reasons for non release of the subsidy amounts.
That till the date of filing of this complaint the complainant has already paid Rs.5,15,000/- on the said loan amount and the O.P. No.1 has claimed Rs.4,00,941/- as the balance amount as the subsidy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was not deducted from the loan amount of the complainant.
Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint case claiming that the O.P. No.2 should be directed to release the subsidy amount and also be directed to pay interest on the said amounts. He has also claimed that the O.P. No.1 be directed to claim the balance amount from the O.P. No.2. The complainant has also prayed that the O.Ps. be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, sufferings etc. and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The O.Ps. were noticed in this case. The O.P. No.1 though entered appearance through advocate has not filed any written version. The O.P. No.2 has filed version. The O.P. No.2 has averred that the complainant was selected to establish Agro service centre and this O.P. recommended his name for sanction of loan in his favour. But the complainant has purchased tractor which is not admissible. This O.P. also alleged that the Agro Service Centre has not been established due to non procurement of firm machineries.
This O.P. alleges that just verification and evaluation of farm machineries and implements were not made in prescribed time for which the subsidy claim by the complainant was not considered.
This O.P. further avers that being completed in all respect and subsequent approval in the District level Committee the subsidy claim documents were sent to M.D. APICOL for release of subsidy. But due to non compliance of Agro service centre the payment of subsidy does not arise. This O.P. further alleged that as special KBK RLTAP scheme has not been operation since 2006 the O.P. No.2 has no such power to sanction and release the subsidy amount. Hence this O.P. prays that this case be dismissed.
-: 3 :-
We have heard learned counsel for O.P. No.2. Complainant remained absent during hearing we have perused the material on records we have perused Ref. No.AM-11/21/560 dt.19.09.2005 of the B.M. Bolangir Anchalik Gramya Bank, Kaudiamunda Branch . We have perused the project details described there the total cost of the Unit is Rs.5,75,805.00 . The margin money to be deposited in this case in Rs.95,805.00 Farmers loan from Bank Rs.4,80,000/-. The price of tractor Rs.3,50,883/- . Rest money is required for the purchase of other farm machineries and implements. We have also perused clause 4 of the said document under the heading Disbursement, from which it is ascertained that the cost of machineries, implements etc. to be disbursed to the suppliers as per quotations by means of Demand Draft/Bankers cheque. In the instant case the complainant has deposited the margin money and loan of Rs.4,80,000/- has been sanctioned in his favour. From this we are inclined to believe that the complainant has not only purchased the tractor whose cost is Rs.3,50,885/- only. But he has also purchased the other farm machineries and implements as described in the project details otherwise the cost of the unit would not have been Rs.5,75,805.00.
We have also perused the letter of D.A.O. & Krishi Sahayak, Sonepur attached with the scheme report on Agro service centre filed by the complainant in this case. From the said report it is ascertained the D.A.O. has written to the B.M. U.G.B. Kaudiamunda that the complainant has been selected for establishment of Agro Service Centre and he is entitled to subsidy amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs on completion of project on the basis of evaluation report of B.M., U.G.B., Kaudiamunda.
In the instant case the B.M. U.G.B. Kaudiamunda has written letter to the D.A.O., Sonepur vide his letter No.Adv./215 dt.19.10.2005, Adv/30 dt.29.5.2006, Adv./63 dt.19.8.2006 Adv/130 dt.26.10.2006 Br/26 dt.6.6.2007 and Adv.392 dt.3.3.2009 to release the subsidy. The letter of the B.M. of concerned bank has been filed in this case in which the B.M. has referred to the above mentioned letters. The B.M. has also reminded the D.A.O. Sonepur that he has completely ignored the request of the bank to release subsidy. It has shocked our judicial conscience that inspite of such repeated approaches also the D.A.O. Sonepur O.P. No.2 has not taken any step for the release of subsidy. He has also not assigned any reason for not releasing the same. He has also not responded to the letters of the concerned B.M. This is gross negligence on the part of the O.P. No.2 and D.A.O. Sonepur. Such type of callous attitude is not expected from responsible officials like the O.P. No.2. We will expect he will be careful and diligent in future while dealing with the subsidy applications of farmers.
-: 4 :-
We would have directed him to pay compensation to the complainant in this case. But we find that the B.M. Kaudiamunda in his letter No.Adv/81 dt.12.4.2012 has intimated the complainant that his subsidy has not been released. So the fact of non release of subsidy came to the knowledge of the complainant on that date and the complaint ought to have been filed within a period of 2 years from that date. Complainant has filed this case only on 17.06.2016. Inspite of repeated adjournments the complainant has not participated in the hearing to explain the reasons for the delay.
For the reasons stated above we are left with no other option but to dismiss the complaint. Complaint is dismissed leaving the parties bear their own cost.
Dated the 9th March 2018
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Smt.S.Mishra, Sri S.C.Nayak
Lady Member President
Dt.09.03.2018 Dt.09.03.2018
