JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER
The present appeal is directed against the Order, dated 07.11.2014 , passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly, in CC Case No. 101 of 2013 , whereby the complaint was allowed on contest with compensation and cost.
The Complainant’s case, in brief , was as follows:
The Complainant being a marginal farmer applied for electrification of irrigation pump set on 10.09.2012 . He also applied on 15.01.2013 for subsidy from the Government in the matter of electric connection to his irrigation pump set. The Mosat Customer Care Centre sent a quotation to him for Rs. 6,854/- on 09.01.2013 . He deposited the sum on 11.01.2013. The Regional Manager, WBSEDCL , Hooghly, got the subsidy amount from the Government, but the deposited quotation amount was not returned to the Complainant for which the Complainant suffered mental agony and harassment . In his petition of complaint he claimed compensation of Rs. 15,000/- apart from refund of Rs. 6,854/- .
The Respondent / OP contested the case by filing W.V., wherein it was admitted that the Complainant deposited earnest money of Rs. 200/- on 10.09.2012 and the quotation amount of Rs. 6,854/- on 11.01.2013. The Govt. provided one time assistance to the marginal farmers towards electrification of agricultural pump set and in the list of beneficiaries, the name of the Complainant was included at serial No. 17 out of 24 and a sum of Rs. 6,854/- was the assistance shown against his name, but the application of the Complainant was not treated for one time settlement as the District Level Sanctioning Committee did not approve the name of the Complainant . It was also contended that the Deputy Director , Agriculture was informed that out of 24 beneficiaries / farmers 10 farmers including Md. Gulam Mustafa who has already deposited entire quotation amount ‘within immature stage against their respective application’ were not eligible for one time assistance and the excess fund as deposited against the said 10 farmers including the Complainant would be adjusted against future OTA applications .
Ld. Forum below having considered all relevant issues observed that though the Complainant deposited the sum of Rs. 6,854/- , subsequent to which the Govt. sanctioned the subsidy amount to the petitioner, the OP denied returning the subsidy amount on the ground that there was no sanction in his favour by the Block Level Sanctioning Committee and the District Level Sanctioning Committee. Ld. Forum further observed that the OP received the quotation amount from the petitioner and the subsidy was sanctioned by the Government in the name of the petitioner , but there was no evidence that the amount sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was returned to the Govt. and therefore the OP / WBSEDCL can not decline to refund to the petitioner his deposited quotation amount. The complaint was allowed with direction upon the OP to refund the deposited sum of Rs. 6,854/- together with compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for physical and mental sufferings and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below , the OP – turned – Appellant has come up before this Commission with prayer for direction , inter alia, to set aside the impugned order .
Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties have been heard.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the order impugned was passed without any application of judicial mind. The Complainant is not a consumer under the Appellant/OP in true sense of the term as his prayer for refund of money is not related to the question of providing any service . Though the Respondent / Complainant deposited earnest money for electrification of his agricultural pump set on 12.09.12 , the Govt. notification for assistance was issued on 31st December, 2012. There was no recommendation for release of Govt. subsidy in favour of the Respondent / Complainant either from the Block Level Sanctioning Committee or the District Level Sanctioning Committee. In the absence of specific recommendation for releasing the Govt. subsidy , the Appellant/ OP was in no position to treat the deposited amount of Rs. 6,854/- as Govt. subsidy for the purpose of refund of the amount . This was clearly submitted in the W.V. filed before the Ld. Forum below but no consideration was made on that point. The name of the Respondent/ Complainant was not included in the list of beneficiaries prepared by the BLSC / DLSC . The District Level Sanctioning Committee being the competent authority to sanction the one time assistance under the scheme ‘ OTA –EAP ‘ during 2012-2013 and there being no recommendation for release of such one time assistance to the Respondent / Complainant , the question of refund of the deposited amount did not arise at all . In fact out of 24 names of persons who submitted their applications , 10 applicants including Md. Mostafa were found to have been ineligible as their applications were filed pre-maturely . The Ld. Forum’s order was erroneous and arbitrary . There was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the Appellant / OP. The impugned order should have been dismissed.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent / Complainant submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,71,678/- was sanctioned as one time assistance by the office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Administration), Hooghly, by their order dated 23rd April , 2013 and the name of the Respondent / Complainant was mentioned at serial No. 17 of the list of beneficiaries as approved by the Chairman DLSC and District Magistrate , Hooghly. But, the OP /Appellant neglected to comply with the direction of the said Deputy Director of Agricultural ( Administration ), Hooghly and refused to refund the deposited sum of Rs. 6854/- as the said amount was not treated as subsidy. Ld. Forum below considered the material facts and passed the order in a reasoned manner. There is no merit in the appeal and the impugned order should be up held.
Decision with Reasons:
We have gone through the memorandum of appeal together with the impugned order, the petition of complaint and the W.V. filed before the Ld. Forum below.
It is the case of the Appellant that there was no evidence placed before the Ld. Forum below showing that the name of the Complainant was there in the list of 24 beneficiaries under the one time assistance scheme of the Govt. for 2012 – 2013. In their W.V. vide paragraph No. 17 , the OP submitted that out of 24 beneficiaries / farmers , 10 farmers including Md. Golam Mostafa , who had already deposited the entire quotation amount against their respective applications were not eligible under one time assistance scheme. There appears to be no discussion on that point in the impugned order showing that there was any material on record contrary to the said contention of the OP.
It is not clear from the order of the Ld. Forum on the basis of which document they were satisfied that the name of the Complainant / Respondent was recommended by the competent authority for release of the subsidy amount, though Ld. Forum below observed that from the ‘documents available before the forum it is noticed that the subsidy was sanctioned by the Govt. in the name of the Petitioner Md. Gulam Mustafa’ .
It appears from the Memo No. 1140 dt. 23rd April 2013 , that the Deputy Director of Agriculture ( Administration ), Hooghly, forwarded a list of 24 beneficiaries as approved by the Chairman DLSC and District Magistrate , Hooghly but whether the Ld. Forum below was satisfied from the said list as to the inclusion of the name of the Complainant / Respondent as a beneficiary has not been made clear , particularly in view of the fact that the OP Appellant vide their memo No. RN / HG / OTA – EAP / 76 Dt. 09.04.13 addressed to the Deputy Director of Agriculture (ADMN) , Hooghly, specifically mentioned on the back page of the said memo that several cases including the name of Md. Golam Mustafa, ‘ could not be considered for one time assistance as those are not techno commercially viable / applications without any document of deposition of earnest money’. In such a position , the matter needs to be adjudicated afresh upon further hearing of both parties and after consideration of cogent evidence that may be adduced afresh by both parties. The appeal , in the result ,succeeds . Hence,
Ordered
that the appeal be and the same is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter be referred back to the Ld. Forum below for fresh order after further hearing of both parties who may adduce fresh evidence in their respective support. The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Forum below on 27.01.2017 for necessary order . There shall be no order as to costs.
