Heard the learned counsel for the appellant .
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant had availed agricultural loan being duly sponsored by the District Agriculture Officer to the tune of 8,856/-. It is alleged inter-alia that the O.P. did not allow such amount as subsidy. So, he filed the complaint.
4. The OP no.1 filed written version stating that they have not received any subsidy amount from the District Agriculture Officer,Balasore and as such disbursement of same does not arise.
5. The OP No.2 has only pleaded that they have sent the amount to OP No.1.
6. After hearing both the parties, learned
District Forum passed the following order on 18.10.2011:-
Xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx
The case is posted today for final hearing. Accordingly, both the parties participated on hearing of this case. We heard from both sides and also heard argument from them. The Adv. For the complt. submitted that the District Agriculture Officer Mr.Prasanta Kumar Behera being present before the Forum stated that an amount of Rs.8,856/- (Eight thousand eight hundred fifty six)only has already been sanctioned in favour of the complt. and the amount has already been sent to the bank. He has also filed a memo regarding his appearance before this Forum. So, the claim of the complt. regarding subsidy amount is a genuine claim, as he has not received till today. On the otherhand the Adv. For the Op No.1 submitted before the Forum that he has not received the amount. However, he has not filed any original documentary proof in support of his case though ample opportunity has been given to him for production of original documents. As the D.A.O.,Balasore being present himself stated that he has already sent the amount. So, there might be a dispute between OP No.1 & 2, but for that reason why the complt. will be suffered. The complt. Being a poor farmer due to the negligence of OP No.1 & 2 has suffered till today for getting his legitimate subsidy claim amounting to Rs.8856/-((Eight thousand eight hundred fifty six)only.Accordingly, the OP No.1 is directed to pay the subsidy amount of Rs.8,856/- only to the complt. alongwith cost of Rs.5,000/- only for litigation and harassment. On the light of above direction filed by the complt. The C.D. case is disposed off.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant-bank has not received any subsidy amount and learned District Forum has failed to appreciate such facts. Moreover, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1994(4) SCC(4) 225 Morgan Stanley Mututal Fund Vrs-Kartick Das. He also relied upon the decision passed by this Commission on 29th July,2010 in C.D.Appeal No.180 of 2001 Krishi Sahayak-cum-District Agriculture Officer Bolangir and others-Vrs- Krishna Pradhan, where this Commission have held that subsidy can not be claimed as matter of right because it is not coming under any category of service.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. The sole question in this appeal whether subsidy can be claimed as the matter of right of consumer. Here in this case the appellant has not received any subsidy from the District Agriculture Officer,Balasore. Also the District Agriculture Officer has not admitted about any sending of subsidy amount to bank. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that the subsidy amount of Rs.8,856/- has been received by the appellant but not disbursed.
10. Moreover, a subsidy amount as claimed by the complainant is not born on payment of consideration. A subsidy is an incentive to promote the agricultural sector. Subsidy is not covered under “Service” of the Act. Therefore, subsidy can not be a matter of right even if it is not sanctioned.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside.
Appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
