Presented by Miss R. Pattnayak, President .
The Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (In short OPs) for non release of subsidy money.
The Complainant who is a farmer had applied for Agricultural term lone for installation of deep bore well under BGJY Scheme after being assured from Opposite Party No.1(one) i.e. District Agricultural Officer, Bargarh to avail 50% (fifteen percent) subsidy from Government under this scheme. He has made her application before the Opposite Party No.1(one) for processing the work done under finance by Opposite Party No.2(two) i.e. Utkal Gramya Bank. The Opposite Party No.2(two) has sanctioned finance to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) for installation of the tube well. Accordingly the Complainant installed the tube well and further requested the Opposite Party No.1(one) to release subsidy money of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only as per the terms and conditions of the BGJY Scheme but till yet, no subsidy amount has been released in favour of him. It is finally alleged that due to non release of subsidy money he has been burden with loan interest as a result the bank authority has issued a demand notice to him for recovery of the loan amount with interest. This act of Opposite Party No.1(one) in not releasing the subsidy amount deficiency in service and the Complainant suffered from harassment causing mental agony and lost her potential livelihood source. Being aggrieved she has field this case before this Forum with a prayer to:-
To Direct the Opposite Party No.1(one) to release the subsidy money with accruing interest.
To direct the Opposite Party No.2(two) to not to realize more than 50%(fifteen percent) of the loan amount including lawful and due interest there on from the Complainant.
To make accountable the Opposite Party No.1(one) for the remaining amount from the loan account of the Complainant.
The Complainant in support of his case has filed the following documents.
Copy of Demand Notice issued by U.G.B. (Opposite Party No.2(two).
Copy of representation made by the Complainant.
Copy of letter regarding release of subsidy.
Copy of Cash memo voucher of Sahu Pumps and Refrigerations Triveni Bore well.
Copy of Cash memo (Retail invoice) of Anwasha Electrical and Engineering.
Copy of Quotations of Triveni Pumps and Bore well.
Copy of letter of Agreement.
Copy of letter No.425 Dt.28/11/2008 of Junior Agricultural Officer, Barpali to B.M., U.G.B., along with application form, Feasibility Report.
Copy of letter Dt.29/06/2010 of U.G.B. to A.A.O., Barpali towards release of subsidy.
Copy of letter Dt.18/08/2009 of U.G.B. to J.A.O., towards release of subsidy.
Copy of letter Dt.21/10/2009 of U.G.B. To J.A.O., towards release of subsidy Dt.23/06/2010/ Dt.21/10/2009.
Copy of letter 69 Dt.24/06/2010 from the device of A.A.O. Barpali to B.M., U.G.B., to submit documents towards re leave of subsidy.
Copy of letter No.58 Dt.20/05/2010 of A.A.O. To D.A.O., Bargarh for submission of name of another beneficiary.
Copy of letter No.56 Dt.15/05/2010 of A.A.O. To D.A.O. About submission of joint verification report along with Estimate and willingness of applicant.
Copy of letter No.53 Dt.04/05/2010 of A.A.O. To Junior Engineer, Elct Sec. No.111 WESCO Electrical. About Joint verification of energisation of pump under Bijli Gramjyotic Yojana.
Copy of letter No.1073 Dt.03/05/2010 of D.D.O, Bargarh to A.A.O. About submission of application from and other documents under BGJY scheme.
On receipt of the Notice from the Forum, the Opposite Party No.1(one) appeared through A.G.P. on Dt.18/02/2013 and filed his written version on Dt.15/04/2013. Where-in he explained his cause and denied the charges leveled against him by the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1(one) in his written version/argument stated that the Complainant had applied before the J.A.O., Barpali for establishing a private lift irrigation point (Deep Bore-well) with Govt. subsidy under the JALA NIDHI scheme during the year 2008-2009 as per the rules laid down under APR-3 of the state Agriculture policy 1996. As per the copy of the application of the Complainant and as per the rules laid down, she had applied to execute the same through one of the empaneled executants of K.S.K., Bargarh namely Konark Steel and Cement Products, Bargarh bearing Regd No. 4/2005-06 and to avail financial assistance from U.G.B., Barpali for the same Deep Bore well . Accordingly the J.A.O., Barpali had sponsored the said application to the concerned bank (Opposite Party No.2(two) vide his letter No.421 Dt.28/11/2008 for finance after verifying the feasibility of the project and other requirements as per rules, with the advice to contact the designated inspector of the project i.e. the Asst. Agriculture Engineer, Bargarh during the time of execution of the project for inspection, measurements and recommendation of eligible amount of subsidy to the Dist. Agriculture Officer-Cum-Krushi Sahayak, Bargarh (Opposite Party No.1(one) for sanction and Transmission to the Managing Director, APICOL, Bhubaneswar, Odisha to release the eligible subsidy.
However, the Opposite Party No.1(one) admitted that the Complainant had brought to the Notice of the Opposite Party No.1(one) regarding non-release of subsidy of her Deep Bore well through her application and subsequently she was requested by the Opposite Party No.1(one) vide letter No.411/12/04/2012 to produce all relevant documents available with her to peruse her case with the Junior Agriculture Officer, Barpali/ Asst-Engineer, Bargarh. As per the documents submitted by the Complainant, it was noticed that she has executed the Bore-well through an agency other than the empaneled executant of K.S.K. Bargarh as opted by her in her in her original application by not following the approved list of Executants and approved price list of different items notified by the D.A.O.-cum-K.S.K. Bargarh vide his order no.3789 Dt.31/05/2013 and with out Contacting the designated inspector of K.S.K, Bargarh during the Execution of the project and hence has been unable to obtain the project executors declaration regarding success of the Bore-well regarding the minimum water yield and warranty on the quality of different items used in the Bore-well with post delivery services which is the pre-requisite for applying before the inspector for inspection/ measurement and recommendation of subsidy. Neither the Branch Manager, U.G.B, Barpali nor the Complainant has ever intimated about the sanction of loan and execution of the project either to the J.A.O, Barpali or to the Asst. Agriculture Engineer, Bargarh for monitoring and guidance. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party that since no subsidy proposal has been received by the Opposite party No.1(one), the Question of release of subsidy by Opposite Party No.1(one) does not arise. Since the Complainant has executed her project with out following the prescribed rules/ guidelines as envisaged in the APR-3 of the state agriculture policy 1996 and hence not be able to produce the required documents before the concerned officials for recommendation of her subsidy to the Opposite Party No.1(one) for sanction, so there is no deficiency on their part. Therefore claims of the complainant never supports the reason and liable to be dismissed with cost.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) in support of his case has filed the following documents.
Copy of Rules for sanction and Disbursement of subsidy on private lift irrigation points, under the Agriculture policy-1996. (Annexure-I).
Copy of L. No. 425 Dt.28/11/2008 of J.A.O. To the BM, UGB. Along with Application from and feasibility report ( Annexure-II)
(3)Copy of order No.3789 dt.31/12/2005 of Krushi Sahayak-Cum-D.A.O, Bargarh. (Annexure-III)
Copy of cash memos filed by Complainant.
Copy of letter of Arrangement.
Copy of letter No.69 Dt.24/06/2010 of A.A.O. To B.M., U.G.B.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) in support of his case has filed the following documents.
Copy of letter Dt.04/07/2011 issued by Opposite Party no.2(two) to Opposite Party No.1(one).
Copy of letter Dt.08/072011 issued by A.A.O, Barpali.
Copy of letter Dt.04/07/2011 issued by Opposite Party No.2(two) to A.A.O, Barpali.
Copy of letter Dt.23/06/2010 issued by Opposite Party No.2(two) to J.A.O, Barpali.
Copy of letter Dt.21/10/2009 issued by Opposite Party No.2(two) to J.A.O, Barpali.
Copy of letter Dt.18/08/2009 issued by Opposite Party No.29two) to J.A.O, Barpali.
Copy of letter Dt.19/01/2009 issued by A.A.O. to Opposite Party No.2(two).
Copy of letter Dt.17/01/2009 issued by Opposite Party No.20two) to J.A.O, Barpali.
Copy of application form under new Agricultural Policy by Complainant.
Copy of keasibility report of J.A.O. Barpali Dt.15/11/2008.
Copy of letter of arrangement regarding loan financed in support of Complainant by the Opposite Party No.2(two).
On receipt of the Notice from the Forum the Opposite Party No.2(two) send his written version and documents through post but did not participated in the hearing. The Opposite Party No.2(two) in his written version has submitted that, the Complainant is the loan applicant before the bank Dt.14/01/2009 where she has requested the bank to sanction agriculture term loan and taking in to the consideration the bank has sanctioned the same amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-( Rupees one lakh)only for the purpose of installation of a tube well and the Complainant has executed the letter of arrangement and also created equitable mortgage of landed property where she has agreed to repay in fourteen half yearly installments amounting Rs.11,075/-( Rupees eleven thousand seventy five)only which shall begin from January 2011 to July 2018. Regarding release of subsidy amount in favour of the Complainant, Bank (Opposite Party No.2(two)) has made several letters to Opposite Party No.1(one) and also different letters to the authorities of agricultural department, but no action from the side of Opposite Party No.1(one) to release the subsidy amount in favour of the Complainant till date. The Complainant further submitted that, the bank (Opposite Party No.2(two)) has rightly issued the demand Notice for repayment of the loan and interest calculate thereon as because the bank has not committed any mistake on his part and the bank has to realise the legitimate dues. Hence prayed that the case may kindly be dismissed against the bank (Opposite Party No.2(two)) with costs.
On the date of final hearing, we heard the rival contentions of parties at length and have gone through the complaint of the Complainant, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for respective parties. We have also verified the case accord and scanned the documents filed by the Opposite Parties as well as by the Complainant.
On perusal of the case record, it is found that the present Complainant is a loanee under Opposite Party No.2(two) who was selected and approved by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to get the loan support under BGJY Scheme. (A Govt. Scheme). It is also not in dispute that the said scheme is being implemented by Opposite Party No.1(one) in collaboration with Opposite Party No.2(two). It is also a fact on record that, the present Complainant was selected as a beneficiary of the said scheme of the Govt. through proper procedure. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.2(two) on his letter No. 425 Dt.28/11/2008 forwarded the application form and all other documents to Opposite Party No.2(two) under the B.G.J.Y. Scheme and sanctioned and forwarded the loan proposal of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only towards installation of bore well and further the beneficiary is eligible to get the Govt. Subsidy of 50%(fifty percent) of the project cost with a maximum limit of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only. On perusal of the case record, it is found that, the Opposite Party No.2(two) in his letter bearing No. ADV/372 Dt.18/08/2009 also requested the Opposite Party No.1(one) to release the subsidy money infavour of the Complainant as she has successfully completed their unit. The Opposite Party No.2(two) also vide their letter No. ADV/210 Dt.29/06/2010, Letter No. ADV/437 Dt.21/10/2009/ADV/134 Dt.23/06/2010 requested the Opposite Party No.1(one) towards release of the subsidy.
The above letters clearly states that, the Opposite Party No.2(two) has informed to Opposite Party No.1(one) to release the subsidy money in favour of the Complainant to avoid the interest burden on the loan amount but despite that the said Opposite Party No.1(one) did not take step to release the same. On perusal of the case record it is further found that the Complainant on Dt.20/01/2012 has requested to Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) through a written letter towards successful completion of bore well and further to release her subsidy but that also did not yield any result. Learned counsel for the Complainant during the course of hearing contended that despite compliance by the complainant to the guidelines and even after several requests and after several letter issued by OP No.2(two) to OP No.1(one), the OIP No.1(one) did not release the subsidy money which amounts to deficiency in service.
After going through the pleading of the parties and on verification of documents placed in case record the point that to be decide is ;
(1) Whether there if any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for Non-release of subsidy money.
With regard to deficiency in service on part of Opposite Party we would like to say that the complainant is a Consumer under the Opposite party, since she is a beneficiary under BGJY scheme launched by Govt-of-Orissa. On perusal of the case record, it appears that Opposite Party No.1(one) is the sanctioning authority of loan proposal under this scheme who for warded her loan proposal to Opposite Party No.2two) for sanction of loan. Accordingly the Opposite Party No.2(two) sanctioned the loan amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh )only in favor of the Complainant towards installation of Bore-well as per the guideline of BGJY scheme. The opposite party No.2(two) also intimated the matter of successful completion of the unit to Opposite Party No.1(one) with a request to release the subsidy amounts. It is further found from the letter No.474, Dt.19/01/2009 issued by Asst. Agriculture Officer, Bargarh to B.M, Utkal Gramya Bank, Bargarh in reply to the letter No.Adv/19 Dt.17/01/2009 where the A.A.O. has informed to the Opposite Party No.2(two) that Sobha Sahu has been Completed bore-well and feasibility to get subsidy after the success of project and requested the Opposite party No.2(two) to kindly make disbursement to driller Triveni Bore-well and Sahu pump, Barpali for necessary information and action at their level.
Further, the Opposite Party No.1(one) denied the claim of the Complainant basing on the order No.3789 Dt.31/12/2005 i.e. Annexure-III. On perusal we found that the Complainant had applied to the J.A.O. for establishment of deep bore well during the year 2008-09 but the Anexure-III filed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) before the Forum is for the year -2005-06. The Opposite Party No.1(one) has not filed the order prevailing during the year 2008-09 when the application for Agricultural term loan was approved and finance was granted. Further the Opposite Party No.1(one) filed only the provisional approved list of executors of the year 2005-06, but not filed the final approved list of executors of KSK Bargarh during the year 2008-09. So the contention of the Opposite Party No.1(one) regarding that deep bore well has not been executed though an empanel executant of KSK Bargarh is not acceptable.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) could have rejected her proposal from very beginning but instead of doing that the said Opposite Party No.1(one) put the poor woman farmer under loan burden. Despite all efforts by the Complainant as well as the Opposite Party No.2(two) the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not listen to the genuine grievance of the Complainant and not released the subsidy money, which amounts to deficiency in service. From the case record, it is also found that there is no negligence on part of Opposite Party No.2(two), since Opposite Party No.2(two) has sanctioned the loan timely as per the scheme guidelines and accordingly the matter was informed to the Opposite Party No.1(one) with a request to release the subsidy money.
In a democratic country the Govt. implements Welfare Scheme like BGJY for the greater benefits of the farmer. The objective of the Scheme is to encourage people relating to Agriculture. The Opposite Party no.1(one) on frivolous and technical pleas not released the subsidy money which caused mental agony and harassment to the Complainant as a result the very purpose of Govt Scheme has been defeated Govt. authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They can not raise frivolous and unjust objection. It is high time that Govt and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what fair and just to the citizens. In the present case, the Opposite Party No.1(one) by non-releasing the subsidy money of the Complainant caused a legal injury to the Complainant which should be compensated. In this age of modern democracy, Govt. encourage for empowerment of rural women so as to ensure gender equity in the rural society. In the present case, the Complainant though a poor rural woman farmer, who was trying to earn her livelihood out of a beneficial govt-scheme, again harassed by govt. officials due to non-release of her subsidy money, the reason best known to them. We allow the case of the Complainant against Opposite Party No.1(one) and dismissed against Opposite Party No.2(two) since there is no proof of deficiency in service on parts of Opposite Party No.2(two) in this case.
Hence Ordered.
The Opposite Party No.1(one)is here by directed to release the subsidy, money amounting to Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only i.e. 50%(fifty percent) of the loan amount in favour of the Complainant within one month from the date of this order along with Compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand)only towards mental agony, harassment and ligation cost failing which the awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till the actual date of realisation.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) is discharged from all liabilities with a liberty to realise the loan amount as per their rule from the Complainant.
Case is disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree, (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak) ( Smt. Anjali Behera) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
