1.  Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice made by the O.Ps the complainant has filed this case for a direction to release his subsidy amount and compensation.

              2.The case  of the complainant in brief is that, he had applied for a loan before the O.P.no.4  for  dug  well and pump set under the subsidy  sponsored scheme. After proper scrutiny of the relevant documents the O.P.No.4 sanctioned the loan on 29.6.2007 and informed the same to the O.P No.1 vide letter No.1224 and after receiving the same from the O.P No.4 the O.P No.1  issued a Go ahead letter  for installation dug well vide letter No.821 dtd.27.11.2009  of Dug well. After receiving of the aforesaid letter from the O.P the complainant had began the construction of the  dug well as per the terms and condition of the O.Ps.After completion of  the same the O.P.no.3 had visited the spot and supplied pump set and   fixed the pipe in the dug well premises of the complainant. The complainant had taken loan of Rs.92,300/- from the  O.P.No.4 for the dug well and pump set. On 28.2.2011 the O.P.No.1 had granted a subsidy certificate in favour of the complainant. After completion of the said project the complainant approached the O.P. for release of his subsidy amount, but the O.P could not take any steps for which the complainant filed this case before this forum for a direction to release the subsidy amount along with compensation.

        3. After being noticed the O.Ps appeared and filed their respective counter. The case of the O.PNo.2 is that the case filed by the complainant is baseless and liable to be dismissed. Further the O.PNo.2 submitted that the so called dug well was an old one. The O.P No.1 requested the Asst.Agril Engineer for verification and as per his report of Asst.Engineer they were remark that the case of the complainant is not eligible as his dug well is an old one. The O.P has not shown any negligence in his duty and the complainant is not entitled to get subsidy and pray for dismissal of the case. The case of the O.P No.3 is that  the O.P.no.3 only supplied the pump set as per the order of  Bank and  further  they stated that the complainant has been supplied Grieves 1.5 HP diesels pump set  as per the order of BCCB bank order   bill No.60684 on dtd.10.1.2011.When the complainant has received the pump set vide challan No.500806 on dtd.10.1.2011 with full satisfaction and the  O.P.no.3, O.PNo.4 is not the sanctioning authority and so there is no deficiency  of service on the part of the O.Ps and pray for dismissal of the case . The O.P.No 4 though appeared in this case could not filed any counter as he is set exparte.The case of the O.P.No.5 is that, he had not received the subsidy claim document of the complainant and there is no delay by him in releasing the subsidy and as such claim made by the complainant against this O.P is to be dismissed. The compensation as claimed by the complainant is not applicable.

                 4. The complainant filed the documents such as sanction of term loan for the dug well and pump set under the subsidy sponsored scheme issued by Boudh Co-operative Central bank. The challan issued by Orissa Agro Industries   Corpation issued in favour of the complainant and go ahead letter for installation of dug  vide letter No.821 dtd.27.11.2009  and also the agreement  made by the Asst. Agriculture of Boudh in favour of the complainant and the subsidy recommendation certificate  granted Asst. officer Boudh on 8.2.2011 and also receipt  and pass book of Telebandha SCS filed by the complainant.

                5. The point for determination in this case whether the complainant is a consumer against the O.P.s and whether any deficiency of service of unfair trade practice has made by the O.P against the complainant.

               6. The complainant had availed loan from the Central Co operative Bank Boudh and the loan has been sanctioned and as per the sanction order of the S.C.S Telebandha has given the loan to the complainant through Central Cooperative Bank. After availing the loan the complainant had  started construction of  dug well as per the letter issued by the Asst.Agril Officer, Boudh .The Dist. Manager Ago corporation also supplied the Diesel pump set of the order B.CC Boudh vide order No.500806  dtd.10.1.2011.As such the complainant became a consumer against the O.Ps.As per the letter issued by the O.PNo.1 Asst.Agril Office, Boudh the complainant had completed the dug well and set up the diesel pump set and the O.PNo.3 had given a pump set to the complainant for the above purpose. After completion of the project when the complainant submitted all documents before the O.P No. 2 for release the subsidy amount he had sent the asst. Agril.  Engineer Boudh for physical verification and as per the inspection report of Agril. Engineer the well was a old one and rejected the subsidy claim of the complainant. The O.PNo.1 and 2 never visited the site of the complainant during the construction work of the dug well nor at any point of time had they also sent the said Agril Engineer for verification. The  complainant had availed the loan  from the Central Cooperative bank Boudh and  he had  done this work on being financed  from the said bank he had also installed a pumps set which has been supplied by the Manger Agro Orissa Industries corporation  on the intimation of the bank and when he had completed the dug well as well as installation of the pump set and claim the subsidy amount the O.PNo.2 rejected the same on the vague ground  that it is a old one. They have never visited the spot at any point of time and after completion of work he had sent the Agril Engineer Boudh for verification. When the O.PNno.1 & the O.P No.2 has not visited the spot during the period of construction  at last a report submitted by Agril Engineer Boudh and rejected the claim of the   complainant is illegal for release of subsidy. When the bank has granted the loan and after receiving the loan the complainant has constructed the dug well installed the pump set in time, he is entitled for subsidy.

     Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and documents submitted by him we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct the O.P.No.2 to release the subsidy amount of Rs.45,150/-(Rupees forty five thousand one hundred fifty) only in favour of  the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the O.P.The case against O.P.No.1, 3,4 and 5 is dismissed without cost.

            Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the 9th day of April, 2015.