1. Brief of the case of complainant is that he purchased one power tiller for earning livelihood by means of agriculture as per scheme of State Govt. i.e. “All Scheme” from O.P. No. 1 after getting approval from the O.P. No. 2 bearing engine no. S16F233025 and chassis no. V16F331181 and paid Rs. 1,20,000/- on 02.11.2016 and Rs. 30,000/- on 03.11.2016 against vide invoice no. 907 dated 03.11.2016.  It is submitted that the cost of said power tiller is of Rs. 1,57,967 and tax paid for Rs. 7,898/- out of which subsidy was granted for Rs. 40,000/-.  It is alleged that as per Govt. rate, the available subsidy for power tiller is of Rs. 75,000/- whereas the O.P. No. 1 has given only Rs. 40,000/- as subsidy and on contact with the O.P. No. 2 who did not pay any heed but replied that the O.P. No. 3 will release the subsidy very soon and handed over one letter no. 42 dated 29.05.2018 addressing to the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Bhubaneswar mentioning for release of Rs. 25,000/- as subsidy by keeping subsidy of Rs. 10,000/- less.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps, he filed this case praying for a direction to the O.Ps to release the balance subsidy of Rs. 35,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. and to pay him Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs.

2. The O.P. No. 1 appeared through his Ld. Counsel and filed the counter versions admitting the sale of alleged power tiller and subsidy benefits to the complainant but has denied the other allegations of complainant contending that since the claim of complainant is only relates to subsidy, as such the same is not maintainable before the Forum.  Further he has contended that the Govt. has to release subsidy amount of Rs.75,000/- in three phase i.e  Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively and accordingly, the complainant has already received subsidy amount Rs. 40,000/- from Govt. through this O.P. No. 1 and the rest subsidy amount will be paid by the Govt. through the Directorate of Agriculture and Food Corporation i.e. to say  the O.P. No.2.  Thus, showing his no liability he prayed to dismiss the case against him.

3. The O.P. No. 2 did not appear throughout the proceeding, though the notice from the Forum which was sent to the O.P. No. 2 through speed post vide RL No. RO954454636IN dated 17.09.2018 has not yet returned unserved, as such we hold the serve of notice as sufficient.  Since the O.P. No.2 did not appear, we lost every opportunities to hear from him regarding the reasons behind non release of subsidy amount to the complainant.

4. The O.P.No.3 appeared in this case and filed their written versions contending that they have received the 2^nd phase subsidy application from O.P. No.2 on 29.08.2018 vide their letter no. 122 dated 20.08.2018 and after due process, they released the subsidy amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 05.10.2018 from their Sailashree Vihar Branch, Bhubaneswar in the account of complainant.  Also contended that regarding release of 3^rd phase of subsidy of Rs. 10,000/- no record is found in their system i.e. 3^rd phase online application not yet received from the O.P. No.2, otherwise they world have released the 3^rd phase subsidy to the complainant. Thus showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.

5. The O.P. No.4, though have appeared in this case through his Ld. counsel but did not choose to file their counters, however, participated in the hearing with contending that since there is no specific allegation against the O.P.No.4, the case may please be dismissed against him. 

6. Except complainant and O.P. No. 1 & 3, no other parties to the present dispute have filed any documents. 

7. Complainant filed the documents like :

1. Invoice no. 907 dated 03.11.2016
2. Details of amount of subsidy of Rs. 75,000/-
3. Letter for subsidy release vide no. 043 dated 12.09.2017 issued by AAO, Pandripani, Malkangiri addressed to Zonal Manager, Bank of India,
4. Letter for subsidy release vide letter no. 42 dated 29.05.2018 issued AAO, Malkangiri (Pandripani) addressed to Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Bhubaneswar,
5. Letter for subsidy release vide letter no. 122 dated 20.08.2018  issued AAO, Malkangiri (Pandripani) addressed to Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Bhubaneswar,
   
   The O.P. No. 1 has filed the documents like :
   
   a. Copy issued by Directorate of Agriculture and Food Production, Bhubaneswar, Govt. of Odisha showing the subsidy details,
   b. Details of amount of subsidy of Rs. 75,000/-
   c. Copy of invoice no. 907 dated 03.11.2016.
   d. Copy of subsidy claim application

The O.P. No. 3 has filed documents like :

1. Copy of letter no. 122 dated 20.08.2018 issued by AAO, Pandripani, Malkangiri
2. Copy of subsidy claim application dated 16.08.2018 issued by AAO, Pandripani,
3. Copy of voucher details for release of subsidy of Rs.25,000/-
4. Copy of front page of bank pass book of Chita Ranjan Biswas,

Heard from the parties present.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.

8. It is an admitted fact that for agriculture purpose under the scheme of State Govt. i.e. “All Scheme” the complainant purchased the alleged Power Tiller from O.P. No. 1 after getting approval from the O.P. No. 2 for Rs. 1,65,865/- and received Rs. 40,000/- as subsidy from the Govt. through the O.P. No. 1 vide his Invoice No. 907 dated 03.11.2016.  The allegations of complainant is that as per Govt. rate, the available subsidy for the said Power Tiller is of Rs. 75,000/- whereas the O.P. No. 1 has given only Rs. 40,000/- as subsidy and on contact with the O.P. No. 2 who did not pay any heed but replied that the O.P. No. 3 will release the subsidy very soon and handed over one letter no. 42 dated 29.05.2018 addressing to the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Bhubaneswar mentioning for release of Rs. 25,000/- as subsidy by keeping subsidy of Rs. 10,000/- less.Whereas the O.P.No.1 has stated that he is only the supplier of alleged Power Tiller and as per subsidy scheme he allowed Rs. 40,000/- as 1^st phase subsidy vide his invoice no. 907 dated 03.11.2016 issued in the name of complainant and the complainant is entitled for rest amount of subsidy from the Govt. of Odisha, Directorate of Agriculture and Food Corporation through O.P. No. 2.And the contentions of O.P. No.3 is that they received the 2^nd phase subsidy application from O.P. No.2 on 29.08.2018 vide his letter no. 122 dated 20.08.2018 and after due process, they released the subsidy amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 05.10.2018 from their Sailashree Vihar Branch, Bhubaneswar in the account of complainant and regarding release of 3^rd phase of subsidy of Rs. 10,000/- no record is found in their system i.e. 3^rd phase online application not yet received from the O.P. No.2.  Thus the parties having different views, prayed to dismiss the case against them.

9. During hearing, the O.P. No. 1 submitted that the present case is devoid of merit on the point of maintainability, as the subject matter of the case is only relates to subsidy which comes under one of gift amount, whereas the complainant argued that since he has already received subsidy amount on two phase basis and he is entitled the balance subsidy amount from the Govt. and all the subsidy transaction arise out of the  principal amount being paid to the O.P. No. 1, hence case is maintainable.  In this connection, we have come across the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between.

10. In the present case, it is seen from the averments and documents filed by the parties, that the O.P. No. 2 is the concerned person to submit the subsidy claim application through online to the O.P. No. 3.  Further as per versions and documents filed by the O.P. No. 3, it is also ascertained that after receiving the subsidy release claim application from the O.P.No.2, they do process for release of subsidy and disbursed the subsidy amount into the account of the complainant.   In this connection, we have gone through the document filed by the O.P. No. 3 i.e. Copy of subsidy claim application dated 16.08.2018 issued by AAO, Pandripani and Copy of voucher details for release of subsidy of Rs.25,000/- and found that after receiving the subsidy claim application, they do prepare the payment vouchers with due process and disbursed the amount into the account of the complainant.  Further the absence of the O.P. No. 2 throughout the proceeding makes allegations of complainant and the submissions of O.P. No. 1 & 3 strong and vital.  Further the documents filed by the parties are remained unchallenged.  Though the O.P. No. 2 has received the notice from the Fora, but did not choose to appear in this case nor filed his counter versions nor participated in the hearing also, as such we feel, the O.P. No. 2 has nothing to say in their support and the subject matter remained unrebuttal.  In this connection, we have come across the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, wherein it is held that that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”    Hence we feel, it is the O.P. No. 2 who is the actual concerned person to initiate the proper steps to release the subsidy amount of the complainant which he is entitled to.

11. Further it is ascertained from the submissions and documents filed by the parties i.e. subsidy details that on 03.11.2016 the complainant has already received subsidy amount of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- on 05.10.2018 respectively and in toto he received an amount of Rs. 65,000/- out of total subsidy amount of Rs. 75,000/- less balance subsidy of Rs. 10,000/- and as per Govt. scheme he is only entitled for the balance subsidy of Rs. 10,000/- from the Govt. through the O.P. No. 2.  And the inaction of O.P. No. 2 for not taking any proper steps towards release of balance subsidy of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant, the O.P.No.2 has proved deficiency in service on his part which is not permissible in the eye of law.  

12. At the time of hearing, the complainant submitted that due to non release of balance subsidy amount of Rs. 10,000/- inspite of repeated approaches made to the O.Ps, he suffered mental agony and physical harassment, which is clearly visible from the inaction of the O.P. No. 2.  Further, we feel, the complainant who is aged about 70 years must have faced mental agony and physical harassment by moving from pillar to post to get his legitimate rights, as the State Govt. is initiating various steps towards progress of agriculture and spending heavy funds in that regard.  But only for a few persons who are acting as intermediary between the State Govt. and the Farmers, are doing mischievous with the poor farmers who depend upon the agriculture as their source of income, playing hide and seek game with their emotions, only to exploit the poor farmers and their hard earnings.  It is seen on many occasions that misshapen incidents are taken place with the farmers due to heavy loan pressure, whereas in many cases, they are deprived of from their legitimate rights which they are entitled to.Hence considering the submissions of complainant, we feel, definitely he has faced mental agony at the age of 70 years and he must have run behind the O.Ps to get the subsidy amount of Rs. 10,000/-, which is not permissible in any manner as per law.Hence this order.

ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 2  being the concerned person to initiate proper steps for release of subsidy amount, is herewith directed to take proper steps to release the balance subsidy amount of Rs. 10,000/- with immediate effect after receipt this order.  Further the O.P. No.2 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment which the complainant suffered and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which the subsidy amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.  Further the O.P. No. 4, being the District Administrate Head, is herewith directed to look into the matter on priority basis, as many farmers, in general, who cannot come forward to put their grievances in this regard, are suffering a lot like the complainant.

        No order against the rest O.Ps.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 2^nd day of May, 2019.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.