Orissa

Cuttak

CC/99/2017

Pravakar Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

District Agriculture Officer,Salipur - Opp.Party(s)

D Sethi & associates

09 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                C.C.No.99/2017

          Pravakar Sethi,

          S/O:Karunakar Sethi,

          Village:Khartang,PO:Nurtang,

          P.S:Mahanga,Dist:Cuttack.                 ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.        District Agriculture Officer,Salipur,At/Po/Ps-Salipur,Dist-Cuttack

 

2.       Director of Agriculture and Food Production,

Odisha,At/PO:9 tala,Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda.

 

3.       Urban Co-operative Bank,Salipur,At/Po/Ps-Salipur,Dist-Cuttack

 

4.       M/s. Manorama Tractor House,

At:Plot No.B-6,Industrial Estate,

Madhupatana,Cuttack

 

5.       M/s. Pagati Engineering,

11/2,Industrial Estate,

Madhupatana,Cuttack.                                                 ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    28.08.2017

Date of Order:  09.02.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. D.Sethi,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps 1 & 2    :            Govt. Pleader.

For the O.P no.4:                   Mr. S.C.Mohanty,Advocate.

For the O.Ps no.3 & 5 :             None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                          

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he being a farmer and being motivated by O.Ps no.1 & 2 intended to purchase a tractor with its trolley  as per the scheme in order to avail subsidy to the tune of Rs.90,000/- towards the tractor and Rs.25,000/- towards its trolley.  Accordingly, he had deposited all the relevant documents and had purchased the tractor with its trolley by obtaining loan from the bank.  He had to deposit the entire money for the tractor and the trolley, since because the same was to be sold to him after getting the entire amount from him.  To his dismay, no subsidy was granted by the O.Ps in his favour subsequently and on the other hand the bank was pressing hard to clear the instalments of the loan as incurred by him.  It is for this, he had to avail hand-loans and had cleared up the bank dues. Inspite of his repeated persuasions, he failed to get the subsidy from the O.Ps, he had issued legal notice to them on 21.6.2017 and ultimately had to file this case seeking direction to the O.Ps no.1 & 2 in order to provide him subsidy for an amount of Rs.90,000/- towards his purchased tractor and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards his purchased trolley of the tractor together with interest thereon. He has further claimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the O.Ps no.1 & 2 towards compensation for his mental agony and another sum of Rs.5000/- towards his litigation expenses.  He has also prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

          In order to substantiate his case, the complainant has filed copies of some documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       Out of the five O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not contested this case, the O.Ps no.3 & 5 have been set exparte vide order dt.31.3.22.  However, O.Ps no.1,2 & 4 have contested this case but, O.Ps no.1 & 2  have filed their joint written version whereas O.P no.4 has filed his separate written version.  According to the written version of O.Ps no.1 & 2, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  The complaint is also barred by law of limitations.  O.Ps no.1 & 2 through their written version have stated that the subsidy as per the Govt. scheme was initiated in the year 2011-12.  When the complainant had applied for purchasing a tractor under the subsidy scheme, the District Agriculture Offier,Salepur had issued a permit in favour of the complainant on 8.8.2011 vide permit no.SAL-Tra-0048/FM/2011-12 which was valid upto 8.9.2011.  But the complainant had not purchased his tractor within the said period.  He has subsequently purchased the tractor violating the guidelines as issued by the State as well as the terms of the permit.  On his request, the complainant was issued another permit enabling him to purchase his tractor under the subsidy scheme vide permit No.SAL-Tra-0056/FM/2011-12 which was valid upto 13.11.2011. The complainant this time had also requested to change the make and model of the tractor.  So again another permit bearing No.SAL-Tra-0058/FM/2011-12 was issued in his favour on 26.11.11 which was valid upto 26.12.11 but the complainant again failed to purchase the tractor within the validity period of the permit.  In order to avail the subsidy scheme as per the guidelines of Govt. of India, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation through their letter no.13-21/94-My(I & P) dt.29.3.1996 the tractors are to be purchased by the farmers through State Agro Industries Corporation.  Likewise, the complainant was to purchase his tractor through the District Manager,O.A.I.CLtd.,Cuttack.  The present complainant had deviated the said guidelines as issued by the Govt. as because he had not purchased his tractor within the validity period nor through the District Manager of Odisha Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.  That apart, he had not applied to purchase the trolley of his tractor through subsidy scheme.  Accordingly, it is prayed by the O.Ps no.1 & 2 to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant of this case.

          The O.P No.4 through his written version has also stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable. But he admits to have sold a tractor to the complainant of this case.  He has not whispered anything about the trolley of the tractor of the complainant.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of O.Ps no.1,2 & 4, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.iii.

Out of the three issues, Issue no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

The subsidy is a scheme of the Govt. which is issued to the beneficiaries, here in this case to the beneficiaries/farmers and in order to avail the same, the Govt. has stipulated some guidelines also.  The intending farmer/purchaser has to adhere to the said guidelines and should not violate those.  As it appears in this case, O.P no.1 & 2 are Govt. Officers who on their discretion have no role to play in the subsidy but have to follow the guidelines as issued by the Govt. in that score.  According to O.Ps no.1 & 2, the complainant/farmer had violated the terms and conditions/guidelines of the Govt. of India as regards to the purchase of his tractor.  O.Ps no.1 & 2 have stated that the complainant/farmer had not purchased his tractor within the validity time on three occasions as given to him.  He had not sought for any permission to purchase his trolley for his tractor through the subsidy scheme.  Moreso, the complainant had also not opted to purchase his tractor and trolley through the District Manager of Odisha Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. The complainant is completely silent in all these contexts.  Thus, the complainant had indeed violated the terms and conditions of the subsidy scheme and when the said subsidy was not extended to him it can never be said here in this case that there was any deficiency noticed on the part of any of the O.Ps of this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said that the case of the complainant is maintainable and he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                                            ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 9^th  day of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President

         

 

                                                                                                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                   Member