Adv.for the complainant - Self
Adv.for the O.P - B.K.Mishra, and N.K.Tripathy
Date of filing of the case – 01.01.2016
Date of order - 06.03.2017
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1.The case of the complainant is that, he being an unemployed had applied a loan for construction of a rural godown under the scheme Grameen Bhandaran Yojana which is a scheme of the government. Accordingly after observing all the formalities the O.Ps. have sanctioned a term loan of Rs.18.62 lakhs including subsidy amount of Rs.5.62 lakh on dated 11.10.2008 which is repayable in 84 monthly installments @ Rs27,480/- per month. The complainant alleges that although he has completed the project as per the scheme and submitted the project report along with necessary documents his subsidy amount has not been released by the O.Ps. Further the complainant has pleaded that although the O.P.No.1 has requested several times to O.P.No.2 along with all documents for release of subsidy amount the O.P.No.2 remain silent over the matter for which the complainant sustain financial loss and mentally suffered a lot. Hence the complaint.
2. The O.Ps. have contested the case by filing their written version separately. The OP.No.1 has denied the complainant’s allegations and averred that, payment of subsidy under the scheme is not within the power and control of the OP.No.1 and as per the terms and condition of the loan agreement the complainant has to pay periodical interest on the outstanding loan amount and hence the interest accrued on the loan amount is legally payable by the complainant. The OP.No.1 clams dismissal of the case. According to OP. No.2, the complainant has submitted two income certificates through the financing bank which requires confirmation from the Tahasildar regarding the correctness of the certificate and on inquiry the financing bank came to know from the Tahasildar that the income certificate issued on dated 8.9.2010 is a correct one and the income certificate dated 24.7.2010 was not found in the official record of the Tahasildar. Hence the subsidy @ 15% was sanctioned on the basis of the income certificate dated 8.9.2010 as per the advice of the DMI, Bhubaneswar. The OP. No.2 claims no deficiency in service on his part.
3. Heard both the parties. Perused the material available on record. The complainant appears in person and submitted that although he has completed the project as per the scheme and submitted the project report and all required documents before the O.Ps., he was not sanctioned with the subsidy amount which is a negligent act of the O.Ps., for which he has sustained financial loss and sufficiently harassed, and hence he is entitled to the relief as prayed for. On the other hand the learned advocate for the O.P.No. 1 submitted that, the entire contention of the complainant in the complaint petition does not disclose a case against the O.P.1 and even if there is any dispute between the parties that is with the complainant and the O.P.No.2. The O.P.1 has acted promptly by sending the proposal of the complainant as and when he submitted before the O.P.1 and hence there is no deficiency in service on his part. The learned advocate for the O.P.No.2 submitted that, since the complainant has submitted two income certificates it was difficult to ascertain in which category he is coming as different amount has been prescribed for agricultural income and non-agricultural income. After ascertaining the same from the financing bank the authority has sanctioned one time subsidy @ 15% which has already been disbursed to the financing bank on dated 1.12.2016. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.2.
4. With these pleadings and material available on record shows that, the complainant availed the scheme of the government for construction of a rural godown under Grameen Bhandaran Yojana wherein subsidy is allowed to the beneficiaries as per the guideline of the Govt. sponsored scheme. The subsidy sanctioned in favor of the complainant is a grant from the government and the same is strictly governed by the terms and condition of the scheme. Therefore availing subsidy under a Govt. scheme and granting of subsidy or non-releasing of subsidy cannot be termed as service as defined in the C.P.Act and hence the O.Ps. are not rendering any service to the complainant. Claiming subsidy is not a right of the complainant and hence the complainant is not availing any service from the OPs. for consideration. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter of non-releasing of subsidy. Accordingly a consumer complaint relating to non release of subsidy is not maintainable.
5. It is also seen from the written version of the O.P.2 that, one time final subsidy has already been disbursed to the financing bank on dated 01.12 2016 by NABARD, Odisha , hence at present there is no dispute relating to release of subsidy amount.
Accordingly the case of the complainant is dismissed without cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH’2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
