1. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair practice the complainant filed this case against the O.Ps for a direction to release the subsidy amount against his loan amount and compensation.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that, he was a farmer belong to ST category and the O.P. has sponsored the name of the complainant for Mix Orchard and on the letter No.3617 dtd.15.10.2007 .As per the recommendation of theO.P.No.1 the State Bank of India Purunakatak Branch provided a loan for a tune of Rs. 6,81,626/- .The complainant had also deposited the project cost along with the margin money as per the direction of the O.P. for sanctioned of the loan. After completion of the project the O.PNo.1to 4 made joint verification and sent letter to the O.P.No.6 vide letter No.1098 dd.22.8.2014 for release of subsidy in favour of the complainant. After joint verification of the O.P.No.1 to 4 the complainant has been selected to get the subsidy amount .Though in the meantime the proposal for release of subsidy has been sent to the O.P.No.5 they remained silent and did not take any steps for release of his subsidy amount. The complainant made several approach to the O.P along with all the Higher of the state for release of his subsidy amount. In the meantime the complainant had also noticed by the advocate of the bank for re payment of the loan amount. As no steps have been taken by the O.P.for release of the subsidy amount the complainant filed this case before this forum against the O.P.s for release of the subsidy amount along with compensation.
3.After being noticed, the O.Ps appeared and filed their counter. The case of the O.P.No.1 is that the dispute is not maintainable under the C.P.Act and the complainant is not a consumer and the O.P. can’t be term as service provider .Further the case is entirely misconceived and O.P. denied all the allegation raised by the complainant. The O.P.No.1 sent the proposal to O.P.No.5 for release of subsidy but the O.P.no.5 returned the same on the ground that the complainant does not qualify for getting subsidy.The case of the O.PNo.1 is that the complainant has promoter profile and on 17.11.2016( 07/24/120) and the said project was proposed by the O.P.No.3 vide letter No.884 dtd.1.9.2007 .After receiving the prompter profile the O.P.No.1 has sent to Branch Manager Purunakatak vide letter No.15.6.2007.The SBI Purunakatak branch then sent evaluation paper vide letter No.40 dtd.20.10.2011 which was received by the O.P.No 1 on 25.10.2011.The O.P. has made a joint verification for the project and the same was approved by DLCC on 28.5.2014 .After approval the O.P. transited the subsidy document vide letter 5065 dd.10.10.2016.The complainant does not get subsidy amount as per the guideline of the resolution 1996.The dispute is barred by limitation and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and liable to be dismissed.The case of the O.PNo2 is that, the case is not maintainable against the answeringO.P.The O.P.No.2 admits that he has signed on the joint verification as a member of the committee.TheO.PNo.2 has no role for release of subsidy in favour of the complainant.The case of the O.PNo.3 is that, the case is not maintainable against the answering O.P.The O.P.no.3 admits that he has signed on the joint verification and forwarded the same to the APICOL for release of subsidy, but the same has not been release as the complainant does not qualify for release of the subsidy.The O.P. has no fault regarding release of subsidy and he has no role for release of subsidy in favourof the complainant. The case be dismissed against him. The O.P.No.4 did not appear and set exparte.The case of the O.PNno.5 is that he is acting as single window agency clearing for of subsidy under policy submit on various scheme for stateagricultureScheme.The Dist.level Committee has sanctioned and the APICOL will release the subsidy to financed bank. The Krishi Sahayak Kendra on receipt of application will issued promoter profile send them to verify the same and copy of all equipment on the conty standing to the specification .On completion of the valuation by the appropriate authority the Kirshi Sahayak placed proposal for sanction of subsidy of proposal before the Dist. Level committee. TheDist.Agrilofficer sent the claim alongwith the proceeding for the sanction which has been accorded to APICOL.The O.P.No.5 further submits the capital investment subsidy of the complainant forwarded to the Deputy Director Agriculture Boudh vided dtd.22.8.2014 and further submits that the Mix orchard for mango 4 acres banana 3 acre total area 8 acre and total project costs Rs.6,70,206/-.AS the proposal does not qualify subsidy as per the above guideline returned back of the DDA, Boudh vide letter dd.11.10.2014 the complainant does not qualify for subsidy as per the guideline.
4. During the course of hearing the complainant has given much stress upon the joint verification Report made on 19.12.2012 and 26.2.2013 to verify the Agriculture Enterprises, in presenceDist.AgrilOfficer, cum Krishi Sahayak, Boudh, ChiefDist.VetyOfficer, Boudh ,Asst.. Director HorticultureAsstArgilEngineerDist.Fisheriesofficers, Boudh and they have ascertained that the Agriculture Enterprises was established in all respect as such it was signed by three person .The Dist.Agril Officer, Boudh vide his memo No.510 dd.3.4.2012 addressed to all persons and also a letter dtd.8.8.2012 vide memo 1738 addressed o all person for joint verification .The complainant made several representation to the Collector, Boudh, Hon’ble Chief Minister, Hon’ble Minister of Agriculture for consider of the case and release of subsidy amount .The Horticulture Officer, Boudh had also take all steps forrelease of the subsidy amount and consideration his case so sponsored the project proposal for sanction of loan to the Dist.AgrilOfficer, Boudh.TheDist.Agril Officer, Boudh had sent promoter pro life along with required documents of the complainant for sanction and release of loan .As per their recommendation it is forwarded to the bank for sanction of the loan. The Govt. of Odisha Agriculture Dept. also take step to the Director of Horticulture Orissa to take appropriate action in this matter and Director of Horticulture has address to Asst. Director Horticulture for look into the matter personally and give a direction to the Govt. as well as the Head of the Department for needful action.
5.During the course of hearing the complainant has given much stress on all the documents and pressing hard on the matter as the O.Ps are not taken due step and homicidally prepared all document and took the complainant in horrible condition by sending it to the APICOL without any recommendation forr elease of subsidy.On the proposal submitted by the O.P.no.3 recommended by O.P.No.1 the State bank of India,Purunakatak branch has given the loan for said mixed orchard farm and after joint verification by the of the dist., level committee the member a committee and theAgril.enterprise established and completed by the above farmers in above purpose. On their recommendation the financing bank has sanctioned loan amount against the complainant after receiving the margin money alon gwith project cost form the complainant. The O.P.No.1 and 3 keeping in dark position in favour of the complainant did not take any steps how to release the subsidy amount in favour of the complainant. The documents filed by the complainant clearly shows that on 26.2.2016 vide letter 2/2898 it observe that even if Govt. is pressing hard the O.P.No.3 had not taken any step against the grievance petition field by the complainant for release of subsidy
6. Documents filed by the complainant shows that the O.P. had taken all steps for the complainant for sponsoring to the project made by Asst.Director of Horticulture , Boudh and on his sponsored the Dist. level committee has recommended the Agriculture Enterprises including complainant mix orchard and send it to the bank for sanction of the loan and the complainant was in no way responsible for not releasing the subsidy against the project cost of the Mix orchard. The complainant takes all steps till date from the date of filing of this case from different department of the Govt. of Odisha for release of his subsidy amount being a ST person.All the documents shows that the complainant at last being harassed filed this case against the O.Ps for not taking good step for consideration of his case for release of subsidy
7.Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and documents filed by him so also written statement submitted by the O.Ps we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct theO.P.No No.1 and 3 to once again send the proposal toO.P.No.5 for release of subsidy in favour of the complainant within two months month from the date and if the O.P.No.1 and 3 fail to comply the release of subsidy in favour of the complainant they will pay Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs) the subsidy cost for their fault and Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only towards compensation to the complainant failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the O.P. for realization of awarded amount. The case against O.P.No.2 , 4 and 5 is dismissed without cost.
Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the 25th day of July, 2018.
