Sri A.K.Patra,President

1. The Present consumer complaint is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops for non release of subsidy on completion of digging of dug well under Jala Nidhi Yojana of the Agriculture Department of Government of Odisha.
2. The complainant has for an order directing the Ops to release subsidy amount of Rs,.75,000/- under Jala Nidhi Yojana and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards economical loss and mental suffering and further pray for an award of Rs.25000/- towards litigation cost.
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the complainant is a poor small farmer of village Salegaon, Po:DUMURIA,ps.Kegaon, Dist.Kalahandi  obtained a work order vide No.203/Agril dt.01.03.2016 from the Assistant Agriculture Officer, Bhawanipatna(OP No.3) to execute the digging of a dug well over Plot No.307/308 of Khata No.159 of village Salegaon under Jala Nidhi Yojana. Accordingly the complainant has completed the digging of dug well within three months on receiving of said work order dt.1.3.2016 and earned eligibility to get release of subsidy amount of Rs.75000/- but even  after several approaches the Ops have not released the subsidy amount for which the complainant suffered  financial loss and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
4. On being notice, the authorized representative of the Ops present and submit that the complainant had filed a consumer complaint early vide C.C. No.85 of 2017 on the same facts and circumstances which was disposed of before this Hon’ble Forum as such this complaint is not maintainable. Further it is sub mitted that this case is not maintainable before this Commission  as the petitioner is not a consumer of the Ops under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no consumer and supplier relationship between the petitioner and the answering OP as  such the petition is misconceived ,devoid of any merit liable to be rejected.
5. It is further submitted by the authorized representative of the Ops that as per field verification report submitted by the Asst. Agriculture Engineer Sri Sarat Chandra Behera, the complainant has executed the digging of dug well of internal diameter is less that 2mt for which he lost his eligibility to avail subsidy. Accordingly the subsidy claim of the complainant for his said project was rejected due to non execution of work/digging of dug well as per approved design i.e. the internal diameter is less than 2mt.
6. On merit the Ops admitted the fact that work order vide No.203 dt.1.3.2016was issued to the complainant from the office of Asst. Agriculture Officer for execution of  digging of dug well under Jala Nidhi Scheme through self finance as per specification of Government of Odisha, Agriculture Department i.e. the minimum inter diameter of the dug well should be 2 mt. and depth 10 mt.  The complainant has to installed diesel pump of 1.5 H.P purchasing from the approved dealer of Kalahandi district. The work was to be completed within three months of receiving of work order in consultation with Er.Sri Sarat Chandra Behera/OP 4. It is further admitted that the beneficiary/ complainant has submitted the completion report before the concert authority for sanction of subsidy of the project.
7. Here in this case the complainant has not come forward to adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim though sufficient opportunity has been given rather, the physical verification report of the alleged execution of dug well of the complainant submitted by the Asst. Agriculture Engineer, Bhawanipatna dt.23.12.2017 submitted to the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Kalahandi range placed  in the case record remained un rebutted/un challenged which clearly proved that alleged dug well is not as per approved design as such the complainant is not entitle to get the government assistance i.e. subsidy under Jala Nidhi Yojana.
8. Based on the above discussion, we found no negligence or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops towards the complainant.
9. Further the complainant has failed to establish that he is a consumer of either any goods or any service for consideration.
10. The Issue of subsidy can not be decided by the Consumer Forum/Commission as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Choudhury Ashok Yadav Vrs. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and another vide Revision Petition No.4894 of 2012 decided on 8.2.2013 wherein it has been held that, a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a consumer as the subsidy is not a  service within the meaning of C.P.Act and his remedies does not lie under the C.P.Act by filing a complaint and that he can seek relief from a Civil Court or such other Forum as per law.
11. Based on the above said judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission and settled principle of law we are of the opinion  that, the issue of subsidy as claimed by the complainant can not be decided by this Commission as subsidy seeker is not a Consumer within the ambit of C.P.Act,2019.Accordingly this consumer complaint is dismissed against the Ops as not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act,2019.

The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

         Sd/- 

President

I   agree.

                       Sd/-

Member    

Pronounced in open Commission today on this   2^nd  day of February 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

The judgment  be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission and  free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet  to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission

         Sd/-                                              Sd/-

   Member                                      President