Adv.for the complainant -  Complainant represent through MASAL

Adv.for the O.P   - Self.

                                  Date of filing of the case - 25.05.2015

                                                                                               Date of order                     -09.02.2017

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K.Purohit, President  

1              The Hon’ble  State commission in a F.A. No. 117 of 2016 remanded this case for fresh disposal, with a direction to dispose of the case within one   & half months . Accordingly the O.ps. appeared on dt.25.05.2016 & the complainant appeared on dt. 29.06.2016. Since then neither  parties are taking interest to proceed with the hearing of the case. Since this is a time bound case, the case has been disposed of on perusal of the material available on record.

2.            Both the complainant have preferred this case jointly having same cause of action . According to the complainant they are issued with work order from the OPs vide letter No. 457 dt.29.05.13 and letter no. 467 dt.29.05.13 for excavation of farm pond in their   Rayati land, wherein they are allowed Rs.60.000/- each to words subsidy after completion of work as per scheme. The Complainant alleges that, although they have completed  their  works as per scheme their subsidy amount has not been released by the OPs.  Hence they have preferred this case with a prayer to released their  subsidy amount by the OPs with interest.

 3              The OP. No.  1 contested the case by filing his written version.  Although notice has been served on OP. 2 & 3, they have not filed any version. According  to  OP. 1, the complainants have not informed the  field  functionary to verify the excavated structure after completing the work and the work is not in accordance with the design and specification as per the guidelines. Hence the OP. 1 claims for dismissal of the case.

4.            Perused the pleadings & documentary evidence available on record. The grievance of the complainants is relating to non-release of subsidy amount by the  Ops. The work done by the complainants is under the NHM scheme of the Govt.  Wherein  50%  subsidy is allowed to the beneficiaries. Hence subsidy available to the complainants is a grant from the Government  and the  sanction  & disbursement of the subsidy is strictly governed by the terms & conditions of the scheme . Grant of  subsidy is not a right  of any person. Further non – granting of subsidy  or  not releasing of subsidy cannot be termed as  service. The complainants are not availing any service from the OPs   for consideration. Hence a consumer complaint is not maintainable.

5.                 Further there is no evidence on record either by way of affidavit  or otherwise to show that, the complainants have followed the terms and conditions for the works done  by them  under the scheme and approved by the authority.

6.            Under the aforesaid discussion   and material available  on record  considering from any angel  there  is no   merit  in this case  and the  same is  not  maintainable.

7.            Hence  the  case of the  complaints is dismissed  without cost. 

ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 9^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY’2017.

 (S.Rath)                                                           (G.K.Rath)                                                         (A.K.Purohit)

MEMBER.                                                         MEMBER.                                                         PRESIDENT.