Adv.for the complainant- Sri A.K.Kanta & G.C.Naik.
Adv.for the O.P.No.1 - None.
Adv.for O.Ps 2 and 3 - Sri S.K.Mishra, G.P.
Date of filing of the case- 16.02.2015
Date of order -15.01.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
The complainant has availed a loan amounting to Rs 5,40,000/- under the project cost of Rs 6,00,000/- .The project titled as “M/S Green Hill” located at Prataprudrapur,Bidighat,Tusura, Dist- Bolangir.
2. The complainant also averred, the project has been approved by District level committee (DLC) and sent to the APICOL in entitlement of 25% capital investment subsidy (CIS) as the scheme envisages. The entitled subsidy calculated as Rs 1,25,000/- as per the total evaluation cost.
3. The complainant states, the cause of action arises on dt.02.12.2014 as the financed Bank ADB (SBI) acknowledged that a sum of Rs 91,000/- has been disbursed under the subsidy amount vide cheque No.238733 dt.22.11.14 but the complainant expressed that the amount be Rs 1,25,000/- as per the schematic provision entitlement under the State Agricultural policy.
4. Further the complainant states, the calculation and entitlement relating to constituents in the project has been erroneously calculated the CIS (Capital Investment Subsidy) for which the complainant sustained financial loss to the tune of Rs 34,000/- and same needs to be reviewed based on the applicable guidelines as it is case of mis-evaluation of Govt. Promoted agricultural scheme. Prayed the O.Ps be directed to pay the loss with interest along with legal expenses and compensation deems fit.
5. Relied on money receipt copy, Revised Project Report, Appraisal Memorandum, Advocate notice, Letters and Affidavit.
6. In pursuant to notice, the O.P.1 appeared in filing with an version admitting APICOL is acting as a single window clearing agency for disbursement of subsidy under various schemes of State Agriculture Policy. Further admitting the capital Investment Subsidy (CIS) includes subsidy on commercial Agri-Enterprises (CABS) and Agro Service Centers (ASCs). The SLC/DLC (State level committee/District level committee) will consider and sanction the CIS amount and APICOL will release the subsidy to the financing banks/beneficiaries as applicable on the recommendation.
7. That under the state Agriculture Policy-1996/2008 Capital Investment subsidy (CIS) is paid to the entrepreneur on the fixed capital investment excluding the cost of land. CIS is not being paid on working capital investment. In the project working capital is Rs 1,00,000/- and the project costs Rs 5.00 Lakh that is eligible for CIS and the eligible project cost for subsidy comes to Rs 3,67,719/-.
8. Again contended the cost of pump house has not been taken into consideration and it is not reflected separately in the project report so on the basis of the above, the total project cost is arrived at Rs 3,67,719/- and CIS @ 25% amounting to Rs 91,930/- .The subsidy amount has been calculated as per the guidelines of State agriculture Policy and general Financial Principles. In addition contending under the State Agriculture Policy subsidy is not consumer goods and precludes the purview of the Consumer Forum thus the case may be dropped.
9. Relied on proceedings of State level committee in photo copy.
10. The O.P.2 and 3 appear and filed a conjoint version admitting the complainant is a prospective entrepreneur and “Mixed Orchard” establishment is an earning for livelihood project by the petitioner. The O.P.2 land 3 has evaluated jointly verified and thereof, completion certificate furnished by the deputy Director of Agriculture. Further admitting the complainant submitted the subsidy claim in prescribed format along with bills and other relevant documents. The subsidy was recommended to the tune of Rs 1,50,146/- in favour of the complainant by DLC and be adjusted against the loan amount of the complainant. So it is prayed that O.P.No.2 and 3 may be excluded from being parties to the case.
11. Heard the complainant and learned counsel’s argument in submission. Perused the record along with relevant documents.
12. Perusal of the documents reveal in payment of Rs 100/- (one hundred rupees) towards proprietor file vide receipt No.E-837522 is a consideration, so the complainant is a consumer within the provision of the definition. The case does not suffer barred of limitation nor jurisdiction thus maintainable. Consequent in availing the Govt. agricultural policy, the complainant is entitled to the benefits under agricultural policy. It is a fact the Mixed Orchard titled “M/S Green Hill” project is a Gov t. approved scheme and the subsidy under the said policy is also paid to the tune of Rs 91,011/- but contention raised the authority in charge to pursue the entitlements in various head of subsidy has miscalculated, so the benefits that entitled to under the scheme has been entirely effected.
13. The O.Ps have failed to submit the guidelines on the disputed facts and entitlement of subsidy in specific. Even the O.Ps differ in their version in admission of amount of subsidy. The O.P.`1 has admitted, the complainant is a beneficiary and no part of subsidy has been held up in either way and the cheque No.238733 dt.22.11.2014 which was cleared from our bank on 03.03.2014 has been arrived at the project cost of Rs 3,67,719/- and the CIS @ 25% thereon amounting to Rs 91,930/- has been allowed under State Agricultural Policy 1996/2008 as it envisages.
14. The complainant raised objection in urging that he is entitled to the subsidy under the State Agricultural policy of 2013,thereby entitlement be calculated @ 40% in capital investment subsidy. Calculation @ 25% on CIS has not been elaborated, discussed and even not justifiably tendered with any reason. So we find the decision taken by the subsidy disbursing agency is contrary to the DLC recommendation, to the disbursement made is erroneous & arbitrary. Though the scheme being a agricultural horticulture beneficial one.
15. The complainant also submitted leaving aside working capital of one lakh (Rs 1.00 lakh) of the fixed capital investment of Rs 5.00 Lakh includes the component of cost of pump house and cost of the plant minus the labour cost. That being in puts as working capital, in nurturing of plants. On this subject, the petitioner further submitted that the cost of pump House has not been taken into consideration by the APICOL on the plea as it is not reflected separately in the project report. For such latches by the State agencies the beneficiary should not suffer which is clear and admitted one.
16. Further the appraisal Memorandum ( Annedxure-3) table speaks the pump house allocation is Rs 50,000/- and plants cost Rupees one lakh and out of one lakh’s component preposition on fixed capital and working capital has not been elaborated by the O.Ps and specifically by O.P.1 or by any project report and if same is taken into submission the working capital cannot be margin as has Rs 1.00 lakh. So disbursing authority has committed a fault in the manner of performance which amounts to deficiency in service. Further District Level Committee recommendation has not been filed by the O.P.1. Non submission of the approved guidelines and taking decision contrary to the recommendation of the DLC and standing effacious guidelines, we find the action is illegal and amounting to willful defraudment without any basis, so we deem the procedure taken into consideration by O.P.1 is erroneous, improper and arbitrary to the core.
17. We considerably come to the conclusion ,the complainant is entitled to avail the schematic benefit under the State Ag4ricultural Policy 2008 although the beneficiary is eligible to get subsidy under State Agricultural Policy-2013. So it is just and proper to incorporate the cost of pump house and plant cost leaving behind the working capital invested in ensuring the cost divested in nurturing and growth of the plants as earmarked in the project cost.
18. Again the revenue expenses reflected in the project appraisal table speaks rupees one lakh has been set aside as the money towards working capital when one lakh has been assigned as working capital out of six lakh rupees, further no justification suffice, one lakh apportioned under plant head even also includes any working capital component in absence of any documentary support. So the entire money earmarked on plant head is fixed capital and entitlement to benefit under agricultural policy 2008, claiming subsidy is proper, reasoned and methodical. Our same view is fortified by the decision made under Anaikulam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Bank –Vs- Prins & others- And it is held- Benefit of benevolent schemes cannot be denied by officers- 2013(1) CPR 72 (T.N)
19. Thus the complainant is entitled to schematic benefit (subsidy) @ 25% on the fixed capital not taken into account by the disbursing authority.
Head. Fixed capital.
On pump house. - Rs 42,000/-
On plant (Rs 1,00,000-Rs 9,600 paid) Rs 90,400/-
Total - Rs 1,32,400/-
Eligibility @ 25% on Rs 1,32,400/- = Rs 33,100/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand & one hundred only)
ORDER.
The O.P.,1 is hereby directed to disburse a sum of Rs 33,100/- (Rupees Thirty three thousand one hundred) only to the petitioner as the amount towards due subsidy and along with a compensation of Rs 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) only for the loss, harassment and mental agony sustained in addition with Rs 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only as legal expenses incurred within thirty days of this order, failing which the disburse sum will carry @ 9% interest per annum from the date of filing till realization.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY’ 2016.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
