BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Party No.1 is a Supplier-cum-Service Provider and Opposite Party No.2 is a Dealer of Opposite Party No.1, running a Proprietorship business under the name and style of M/s. Patra Agro Enterprise and Opposite Party No.3 is the Department of Agriculture (Govt. of West Bengal).

2. The Complainant is a needy farmer earning his livelihood from cultivation of agricultural land. Somehow he came to know about the govt. subsidy in installing a Solar Water Pump System for irrigation of the cultivation land by the Op No.3 i.e. Department of Agricultural (Govt. of West Bengal) and therefore, applied online before the Op No.3 for availing the subsidy by purchasing a Solar Water Pump System under the said scheme against which he got the ultimate approval from Op No.3 vide Sanction Order No. FSSM/OTA-SFT under Memo No.789243, dated: 09.09.2019. Thereafter as per the direction of Op No.3, the Complainant met with the vendors i.e. Op No.1 & 2 for necessary installation of the Solar Water Pump System which is duly installed in due time by the Op No.1 & 2 after receiving the full payment of Rs.3,50,000.00 from the Complainant.

3. After completion of the installation, the Op No.1 demanded Rs.30,000.00 towards unofficial extra money to despatch the requisite papers and documents to the Op No.3 for disbursing the sanctioned subsidy amount which the Complainant denied to pay.

4. Therefore, the Complainant several times approached to the Op No.3 for enquiry to release the sanctioned amount but, Op No.3 said, until and unless the Op No.1 will send/despatch the requisite office papers, it will not be possible for him to release/disburse the sanctioned subsidy amount.

5. Then the Complainant lodge official complaints twice before the Block Development Officer, Patashpur – I on 28.12.2020 and 01.03.2021 respectively as well as before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Purba Medinipur for mediation but, due to non-present by the Ops the unsatisfied Complainant prefer to move before this Commission for necessary redressal.

6. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 01.03.2021.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for :-

1. To disburse the Govt. Subsidy or take Return Back the total Purchased/Installed Machinery by Refunding Rs.3,50,000.00 to the Complainant by the Ops.

2. To pay Compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00 towards harassment,      mental pain and agony, loss and damages of paddy and labour      etc.

3. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.20,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs.

7. Notices were duly served upon the Op No.1 to 3 but, Ops  preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against them.
8. Under the above circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for ex-parte order against the Ops.

9. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

10. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Petition of the Complainant along with all papers and other supporting documents.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops 1 & 2 as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. In the instant case, the Complainant submitted a list of documents containing the copy of Sanction Order against the Application Approval Letter issued by the Op No.3 i.e. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Patashpur Block – I, Purba Medinipur; Tax Invoice for purchasing the Solar Water Pump, Panel, Structure, Cable etc., Warranty Certificate and Letter for Demonstration/Training/ Operation of Solar Water Pump System from the Op No.1 i.e. Sunive Energy Pvt. Ltd.; Photograph of the installed machinery; two Complaint Letters lodged before the Block Development Officer, Patashpur; two Bank Deposit Receipts and two Cash Deposit Receipts for payment in favour of Op No.2 i.e. M/s.Patra Agro Enterprise.

5. From the above submitted documents as well as submitted Written Examination-in-Chief on affidavit by the Complainant, it is carefully observed that the production of the following documents before the Op No.3 are necessary within 30 days of communication of the Sanction Order - FSSM/OTA-SFI, under Memo No.975(4)3, dated: 09.09.2019.

1. Copy of the Original GST Bill having machinery identification feature.
2. Warranty Certificate.
3. Demonstration/Training or Operation of the machinery signed jointly by the farmer and dealer.
4. Photograph of the machine with beneficiary.
5. Undertaking of farmer regarding sale/mortgage/lease out etc.

6. From the above criteria, it is observed that the Complainant purchased the machinery on 07.10.2019 vide GST Tax Invoice No. SUN/014/19-20 for Rs.3,50,000.00. Warranty Certificate and Documents for Demonstration/Training or Operation of the Solar Water Pump System both duly signed by the Op No.1 but, not by the Complainant as Beneficiary Farmer jointly with the Op No.1 as Dealer. Picture of the machinery is without photograph of the Complainant as Beneficiary. Undertaking of Complainant as farmer regarding Sale/Mortgage/Lease Out etc. is also not submitted as per the criteria.

7. Moreover, it is minutely observed that out of the total price of machinery as per the Tax Invoice for Rs.3,50,000.00; total Rs.3,00,000.00 has been paid vide two Bank Deposit Receipts amounting to Rs.1,00,000.00 on 26.09.2019 and Rs.50,000.00 on 11.12.2019 and two Cash Deposit Receipts amounting to Rs.50,000.00 on 26.10.2019 and Rs.1,00,000.00 on 26.09.2019 respectively in favour of Op No.2 i.e. M/s.Patra Agro Enterprise. Therefore, we have not find any payment receipt for the balance price of machinery amounting to Rs.(3,50,000.00 – 3,00,000.00) = Rs.50,000.00. Even the Installment for Rs.50,000.00 deposited in Bank on 11.12.2019 and Rs.50,000.00 paid in Cash on 26.10.2019 respectively are made beyond the time limit of 30 days as per the Terms & Conditions of the Sanction Order.

8. The above facts are suppressed by the Complainant in the Complaint as well as in the Written Examination-in-Chief on affidavit . The  purchase of the goods within 30 days  was the basic criteria for disbursement of such Govt. Subsidy. The complainant did not fulfill the said criteria. Moreover, the Op No.3 being a Department of Agriculture (Govt. of West Bengal) can’t be termed as a Service Provider. Therefore, the Op-3 is not at all responsible for not disbursing the  Govt. Subsidy claim of the Complainant for non compliance of terms and condition. This commission can not interfere with the policy matter of the Government.

1. There is no element of negligence, unfair trade practice and gross deficiency of service on the part of the Ops.

10. Now, coming to the matter of reliefs, the Complainant can’t get any relief as prayed for.

11. Accordingly, both the points are decided against the Complainant.

•  Thus, the complaint case fails.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-75 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed    exparte against the ops , however without any order as to costs.

Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the Complainant   free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the    website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this  judgment.