Presents:-

1. Sri P.Samantara, President.
2. Sri G.K.Rath, Member.

                    Dated, Bolangir 21^st day of September 2015.

                    C.C.No. 80 of 2014.

Smt. Truptishree Mishra, aged about 25 years w/o. Smarak Mishra.

Resident of village/P.O-Chhatamakhana, P.S/Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                                                  ..       ..         Complainant.

                    -Versus-

1.Managing Director (APICOL), At- Barmunda,Bhubaneswar-751003.

2.District agriculture Officer, Bolangir,P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                                                 ..        ..          Opp.Parties.

Adv.for the complainant- Sri A.K.Mishra & S.Mishra.

Adv.for the O.Ps            - Sri S.K.Mishra,G.P.

                                                                                 Date of filing of the case- 19.11.2014

                                                                                 Date of order                  -  21.09.2015

JUDGMENT.

Sri P.Samantara, President.

                  Complainant case is that being an employed lady interest to establish an Agro Service Centre at Chhatamakhana under self employed programme envisaged under New Agri Policy-2013.

2.               In addition, it is also averred. The subsidy on Agro Service Centre will be sanctioned by the District level committee after ASC is completed in all respects and made operational and will be released by the APICOL Bhubaneswar.

3.              The total cost of the project is Rs 8,66,984/- being eligible to get subsidy @ 50% of the cost of the project under self employment programme.

4.              Further said a sum of Rs 3,81,369/- bearing cheque No.110393 dt.15.09.2014 has been credited to the term loan account of Smt.Truptishree Mishra deducting a processing fess of Rs 1% of CIS, but which is Rs 52,123/- less on the declared terms of subsidy. Pray to direction may be passed to pay the subsidy along with cost.

5.              Relied on letter No.3812,letter No.4758/APICOL, Statement Account, Scheme and affidavit.

6.               Pursuant to notice –O.P.1 made the version, admitting APICOL is acting as a single window clearing agency for disbursement of subsidy under various scheme. The SLTC has approved price for various eligible implements, on the basis of which subsidy amount is supposed to be calculated. In completion of process APICOL in turn on receipt of the claim will scrutinize all the documents and disburse the eligible amount of subsidy through the financing agency in bank financed cases whereas to the entrepreneur directly through cheque in case of self financed case. On verification of record, it was found that the subsidy amounting to Rs 3,81,369/- was released to the complainant based on the approved/eligible cost of various implements. There is no short payment of subsidy. Subsidy is not a consumer goods. Hence it is not coming under the purview of the consumer protection Act. Relied on Govt.of Orissa guidelines on special drive on self employment for unemployed youth in photo copies.

7.              Case of the O.P.2-  The complainant was identified as a prospective entrepreneur for establishment of Agro Service Centre, the project cost is Rs 8,66,984/- and financed by Andhra Bank. The O.P.No.2 submitted the subsidy claim documents along with proceedings of the D.L.C. to O.P.No.1 for release of subsidy to Andhra Bank. The O.P.2 not committed any negligence or deficiency of service.

8.              Perusal reveals, the documents of the complainant are photo copies and the originals are absent to consider. The letters and scheme guideline does not transpire the exclusive and specific eligibility to get the subsidy. The project cost amounts Rs 8,66,984/- getting flat 50% subsidy on the project is not placed with evidence  to admit, again the contention raised by the O.P.1 that subsidy matter does not come under the purview of the act, we abide with that view. The O.P.1 asserted that allowing subsidy is specific on eligible equipments. Thereof the eligibility computed amount has been rightly credited to the account of the complainant. Other than the paid amount is required to be proved, in adducing documentary evidence, not in toto but in individual eligibility accrual. Our same view is supported by the decision in which it is held- Mere producing certain documents, which are  not public documents and mostly unattested photo copies, is not synonymous of tendering those documents in evidence- M/S- Dhara enterprise-Vs- National Insurance Co.Ltd- 2012(1) CPR 384 (Maharastra).

                     Thus we find the complainant failed in giving the evidence as per grievance made. Accordingly we find the case has no merit and thereby the case is dismissed.

ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015.

                                           I agree.

                                           (G.K.Rath)                          (P.Samantara)

                                            MEMBER.                         PRESIDENT.