1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that in the year 2014-15 under Government of Odisha subsidy scheme for farmers, the complainant was provided with Drip Irrigation under Micro Irrigation Project and for 5.00 Acres of land the complainant deposited Rs.90, 000/- with OP.2, who is the certified dealer for installation of drip irrigation on the land of the complainant.  It is submitted that the OP.2 installed the machineries but it did not work for which the Ops were requested for proper installation of machines but to no avail and hence the complainant could not raise crops during the said year.  It is further submitted that due to negligent acts of the Ops the complainant sustained huge loss.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.90, 000/- with interest and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards loss sustained to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter admitting drip irrigation under micro irrigation project provided to the complainant in the year, 2014-15 and the work was executed by OP.2.  It is contended     that as per the choice of the complainant, the work was entrusted to OP.2 and after completion of work, the OP.1 has released the subsidy amount in favour of OP.2 after due verification of the unit and also in consultation with the complainant about performance of the machineries.  It is further contended that the OP.2 was providing service for maintenance of the machineries within the warranty period and the OP.1 has no role about any mechanical failure or non functioning of the drip machines.  As per request of the complainant, the OP.1 has directed OP.2 to sort out problems and the OP.2 has promptly provided necessary service to the unit.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that drip irrigation system was installed as per direction of OP.1 with a cost of Rs.3, 58,997/- out of which a sum of Rs.1, 94,580/- was admissible subsidy and the balance amount of Rs.1, 64,417/- was to be paid by the complainant.  After successful installation and functioning of the unit to the satisfaction of OP.1 as well as complainant, the subsidy amount was released in favour of OP.2 in the month of July, 2014 but in spite of repeated requests of OP.2, the complainant did not pay the farmer’s share and in order to avoid the payment, the complainant has filed this case.  Denying receipt of Rs.90, 000/- from the complainant, the OP.2 contended that the complainant is put to strict proof of the fact of payment to OP.2.  It is also further contended that the OP.2 has successfully installed the unit to the satisfaction of OP.1 as well as the complainant and the OP.1 has given completion certificate to that effect.  The complainant has never informed OP.2 regarding non functioning of the unit but on receipt of information from OP.1, the OP.2 has deputed its Engineer and Mechanics to the field who noticed that the complainant has never used the drip irrigation system since inception causing mechanical damage to the system.  The Engineer also noticed that during back filling of trenches and cultivation of paddy in the said land, the complainant had forgotten about the drip irrigation causing severe damages.  The OP.2 also further contended that due to such negligence of the complainant, the pipe lines were damaged which were removed and repaired by OP.2 under intimation to OP.1.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The complainant and OP No.2 have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case, drip irrigation system under micro irrigation project in the year 2014-15, a subsidy scheme of Govt. of Odisha provided to the complainant-beneficiary and execution of said work by OP No.2 under direct supervision of OP.1 is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that he has paid Rs.90, 000/- towards his share to OP.2 but the unit installed by OP.2 did not function properly and in spite of correspondences with OP.1 for proper installation of unit, they turned deaf ear for which the complainant sustained loss in the year, 2014-15.  The OP.1 stated that in terms of agreement, the OP.2 successfully installed the unit and after due satisfaction of the complainant, they released the subsidy amount in favour of OP.2.  The OP.1 also has categorically mentioned in his counter at Para-5 that the OP.2 was providing service for maintenance of the machineries within the warranty period.

6.                     The OP No.2 stated that he installed the drip irrigation machineries with all accessories in the land of the complainant and after installation and successful running of the machineries to the satisfaction of OP.1 as well as complainant, both of them have granted completion certificate.  It is seen from the record that the Asst. Agriculture Engineer of OP.1 as well as the complainant has given completion certificate with Photograph of the unit and concerned persons.  The Officer of OP.1 has physically verified the unit and has given report under his signature and seal regarding satisfactory working of the system with good quality materials.  From the above facts duly supported by documents, it was clearly ascertained that the unit has been properly installed by OP.2 with full satisfaction of OP.1 as well as the complainant during 2/2014.

7.                     It is seen that the complainant has informed OP.1 through a letter dt.13.5.2015 regarding improper installation of drip irrigation in his land.  He also pleaded ignorance about his consent and completion report.  This kind of allegation only came after 15 months of completion of unit but in view of copy of completion certificate issued by OP.1 as well as the complainant which is filed by OP.2, the allegation of the complainant regarding completion certificate is not acceptable.  It is also seen that as per request of the complainant, the OP.1 has directed the OP.2 to rectify the defects if any noticed in the unit.

8.                     The OP.2 in his counter supported by affidavit stated that on their verification of machineries they found that the complainant has never used the drip irrigation system since inception and as such caused damage to the entire system.  It is further stated that due to wrong system of back filling of trenches and paddy cultivation in the same land on its own style without considering the guidelines and existence of drip irrigation in the field, the complainant has caused damage to the pipe lines worth Rs.20, 000/- to which they immediately replaced and fact was intimated to OP.1.

9.                     From the above facts it was ascertained that the OP.2 has installed the unit to the satisfaction of the complainant as well as OP.1 and has provided prompt service to the unit within warranty period and the fact also has been admitted by OP.1 through its counter.  Regarding payment of Rs.90, 000/- to OP.2 towards farmer’s share, it is seen that no such document is filed by the complainant in support of his averment.  On the other hand the OP.2 stated that in spite of several requests, the complainant is yet to pay his share amount.  In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.

10.                   In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)