By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:

          This is a complaint preferred under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          2. Facts of the case in brief:- The Complainants are traditional agriculturists.  Agriculture is there livelihood.  In the year 2012-13  the  Complainants had applied to the first Opposite Party for getting the amount of  subsidy declared by the government  for drip irrigation system.  The  1^st  Opposite Party, though accepted the applications, failed to take further  actions and hence the Complainants could not get the amount of subsidy.  The Complainants could not get the amount of subsidy as the  1^st  Opposite Party had not  forwarded their applications to the government on  time.  The 1^st Complainant was eligible for a subsidy of Rs.31,707/- and the  2^nd  Complainant was eligible for Rs.27,701/-.  But they had got only Rs.15,768/-  and Rs.14,980/-  respectively to the  1^st   and 2^nd  Complainants.  Moreover,  though the Complainants had approached the 1^st  Opposite Party, several times,  no favourable actions were taken by them.  Being the supervising authority,  there has been deficiency in duties of the 2^nd  Opposite Party.  Due to the inactions from the part of the 1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties,  the Complainants have faced physical,  mental and financial sufferings for which the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/-   each to the Complainants.  Demanding the amount of subsidy, the Complainants had sent a registered notice to the 1^st Opposite Party on 24.10.2017.  After receipt of this notice the Opposite Parties had orally told the Complainants that the balance of subsidy amount should be given on getting it from the government.  But, till date the Opposite Parties had not disbursed any amount as balance of the amount of subsidy.  The acts of the Opposite Parties are deficiency in service and dereliction of their duties.  Hence, this complaint praying .

1.  To direct the Opposite Parties to pay the balance subsidy amount of Rs.15,939/-  with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the year 2013,  to the 1^st  Opposite Party,
2. To direct the Opposite Parties  to pay the balance  subsidy amount of Rs.12,730/- with interest  at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the year 2013, to the 2^nd  Opposite Party,
3. To direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation  at the rate of Rs.10,000/-  each.
4. To direct the Opposite Parties to pay cost of this complaint and
5. To grand such other relief that this Commission deems fit enough to grand.

3. The complaint  was registered   and  notices  were  served on the Opposite

Parties.   The Opposite Parties entered  appearance and joint version was filed.

          4. Contents of version in brief:-  All the averments in the complaint are denied.  The complaint is not maintainable as per law, before  the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  The Complainants had applied for the subsidy.  These applications were  forwarded to the Assistant Director,  Agriculture,  Panamaram.  In the  years 2013-14 the full amount required was not obtained and hence the District Agricultural Officer,  Wayanad had forwarded a letter on 30.12.2013  seeking allotment of fund.  Further,  on 29.04.2014 also letter was forwarded seeking fund.  Due to the lack of availability of sufficient fund the claims were refixed and on that basis the 1^st  Complainant was given Rs.15,768/- and the  2^nd  Complainant was given Rs.14,980/- on 31.03.2017 as bank transfer.  The Opposite Parties had acted in good faith in all matters connected with this and this fact was also convinced to the Complainants. The averment of the Complainants that the Opposite Parties had offered that balance subsidy will be given to them is not true.  Considering  the averments in the version,  the Opposite Parties have prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. Joint  Affidavit was filed by the Complainants,  Exts.A1 series were marked

from their side and the 1^st  Complainant was examined as PW1.  Joint  Affidavit was also filed for the Opposite Parties,  Exts.B1  to B8 were  marked from their side and the 1^st  Opposite Party was examined as OPW1.   Considering  the complaint, version, affidavits filed, documents marked and the oral deposition of both the parties,  the following points were raised:-

1.  Whether  complaint is maintainable as per law?
2. Whether there has been deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Parties?
3. Whether the Complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for?

6. Point No.1:-  This complaint is  preferred under  Section 12 of the Consumer

Protection  Act 1986.  In version,  the Opposite Parties have contented that this complaint is not maintainable as per  law and hence prayed to dismiss the  complaint.  As per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 “Consumer” means any person who

 (i)  buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised,  or  partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user  of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial  purpose or 

(ii)  hires or  avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised, or partly paid any partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person  who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment,  when such services are availed of with the approval  of the first mentioned person but does not include a person of such services for any commercial purpose.

7. In the present complaint, no transaction has been made by the Complainants relating to any goods for a consideration as mentioned under Section 2(d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and hence the Complainants are not coming under the definition of consumer as defined in the first part of section 2 (d) of the Act.  To become a consumer under Section 2(d) (ii) of the Act, in  the transaction there shall be an element of service for a consideration.  In order to sustain a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986,  the Complainants are bound to prove that they had availed services from the Opposite Parties and that should be for a consideration.  In the present case,  the grievance of the Complainants is that they were not given the full amount of subsidy for installation of drip irrigation as per government scheme.  No element of service is seen involved in this case.  Subsidy is a concessional  payment given by the government in certain schemes.  Here, the Opposite Parties have discharged their duty in their administrative  capacity and it is not a service provided by the Opposite Parties  to the Complainants.  No payment or any element of consideration  has been there from the side of the Complainants to get subsidy from the Opposite Parties.  Therefore,   the Complainants are not consumers  under  Section 2(d)(i) or 2 (d)(ii) of the  Act.  Legally only consumers can file Complaints before this Commission for their grievances.  In  the present case,  as the Complainants are not consumers under Section 2 (d)(i) and 2 d(ii) of the  Consumer Protection Act 1986 the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8. Point No.2 and 3:-  As the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed,  no relevance to consider point  No.1  and 2  above.

In the result,  the complaint is dismissed without cost.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29^th day of  October  2022.

Date of filing :16.09.2019.

                                                          PRESIDENT :    Sd/-

                                                          MEMBER    :    Sd/- 

                                                          MEMBER    :    Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.          P.C. Chandramohan.                Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1.        Anagha. E.V.                           Agricultural Officer.       

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1 (a)         Postal Receipt.                         dt:25.10.2017.

A1(b)          Postal Receipt.                         dt:25.10.2017.

A1 ©                    Acknowledgment.

A1 (d)         Acknowledgment.

A1(e)          Lawyer Notice.                                   dt:24.10.2017.           

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1.        Copy of Retail Invoice.                            dt:05.03.2013.

B2.        Copy of G.O(Rt) No.1883/13/AD.          dt:30.10.2013.

B3.        Copy of Letter.                                        dt:29.04.2014.

B4.        Copy of Minutes of the review meeting 

              of Deputy Director of Agriculture (H) .    dt:14.01.2016.

B5.        Copy of Minutes of the review meeting 

              of Deputy Director of Agriculture (H) .    dt:27.02.2016.

B6.       Copy of Proceedings of the Deputy

             Director of Agriculture (C), Wayanad        dt:13.03.2017.

B7.       Copy of Proceedings of the Deputy

             Director of Agriculture (H), Wayanad        dt:31.03.2017.

B8.       Copy of Judgment (Appeal No.106/15)   dt:22.01.2016.

                                                                        PRESIDENT:   Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER    :    Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER    :    Sd/-