PER:   SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, MEMBER (W):

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of her  grievance before this Commission.  

2. The complainant is being woman farmer became self-employed and being beneficiary and positional user of deep bore well for agricultural purpose. The O.P.No.1 is the competent authority to provide deep bore well to the beneficiary coming under its jurisdiction. O.P.No. 2 & 3 both are administrative head of the O.P.No.1 at Dist: Ganjam and in the state of Odisha respectively. The complainant has complying the guidelines of the O.P.No.3 applied for a deep bore well for the purpose of vegetable production which is coming under agriculture head and formed a cluster having consent of four other beneficiaries of same village and the lands of these beneficiaries are available in adjacent to the complainant’s land. Accordingly, the complainant has applied to the O.Ps to have a deep bore well and deposited the fixed amount of Rs.20,000/- in the Union Bank of India, Berhampur on 11.12.2015 and pledged to O.P.No.3 and issued a Registration No: GAM20288 in favour of the complainant and the complainant became beneficiary-cum-applicants for the benefits  of the deep bore well. On checking of application status against the registration number GAM 20288 online on 07.04.2016 the O.P.No.3 has allowed and mentioned the status as “Application feasible granted”.  When the O.Ps started providing of deep bore well to other beneficiaries of the complainant’s village sometime in the months of January and February 2017, the complainant has inquired about her application in the office, the O.P.No.1 without assigning any reasonable reason told to the complainant that, withdraw the deposit deposited in the bank and also denied to dig the deep bore well in the agriculture land of the complainant. On receiving of such answer from the O.P.No.1, the complainant has filed a complaint at Collector’s grievance cell, Ganjam at Chatrapur. When nothing was fruitful, the complainant has inquired into the matter through her advocate from the O.P.No.2 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The complainant has issued an advocate notice through “The Law Consortium” Berhampur vide Notice No. 33 dated 22.08.2017 but the O.P.No.2 only replied that the application of the complainant was rejected subsequently. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to provide the deep bore well in the land of the complainant, compensation of Rs.1000/- per month from the February 2017 and litigation cost of Rs.5700/- in the best interest of justice.

3. The Commission admitted the case on the point of admissibility of the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties.

4. The O.Ps appeared and filed written version through their advocates. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint are not at all true and correct and hereby denied by the O.P.No.1 to 3 and the facts which are not specifically admitted herein are deemed to have been denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same with cogent evidence. The facts remains that the complainant made an application on line as beneficiary to the O.P. No.3 for digging of deep bore well. After receiving the said application of the complaint the O.P.No.3 has registered and forwarded the same to O.P.No.1 & 2 for proper enquiry and report. The O.P.No.1 and 2 made an enquiry and verified the documents of the complainant for digging of deep bore well as per norms and conditions of the said scheme which is laid down by the Government. After verification of documents and after making field enquiry as regard to the contentions of application, it is come to the light of the day that the husband of the applicant has already availed the scheme. So the complainant is not fulfilled the eligibility criteria as beneficiary under the said scheme. So the complainant’s application is rejected and informed the same with a direction to withdraw the said registration fees immediately. The eligible criteria for the bonafide beneficiary which is reflected in application form is well aware by the complainant, even though the complaint has made an application with a malafide intention by suppressing the real fact. The complainant has also suppressed about availability of the scheme by her husband for digging deep bore well. The complainant herself is well aware that she is not entitled to get the benefits of the scheme as because the so called scheme has already availed by her husband. This complaint is not coming under preview of consumer as such the complainant has no right to file this case before this Hon’ble Forum. Besides this our own High court, Orissa, Cuttack held that this type of case cannot be admitted and cannot pass any order in this regard Writ Petition (C) No.22057/2016. Hence the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the case.

4. On the date of hearing both parties are present. The Commission perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument and documents available in the case record.  The complainant has applied to the O.Ps to have a deep bore well and deposited the fixed amount of Rs.20,000/- in the Union Bank of India, Berhampur on 11.12.2015 and pledged to O.P.No.3 and accordingly a Registration No: GAM20288 in favour of the complainant was issued and the complainant became beneficiary-cum-applicants for the benefits  of the deep bore well. It is come to the light of the day that the husband of the applicant has already availed the benefits under the same scheme. So the complaint is not fulfilled the eligibility criteria as beneficiary under the said scheme. So the complainant’s application is rejected and informed the same with a direction to withdraw the said registration fees immediately.

The law is well settled that, “having regard to the fact that the dispute did not legitimately fall within the purview of adjudication by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, the claim made by the respondents before the State Commission is dismissed” as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the State Of Gujarat vs Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 2664. 

In the light of the above decision of law, the Commission dismissed the complaint against the Opposite Parties. No order as to cost and compensation.

                 This case is disposed of accordingly.

                The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

             A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

            The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 19.02.2024.