Orissa

Debagarh

CC/6/2019

Hiramani Behera,aged about 48 years, S/O-Sarat Chandra Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

05 Sep 2019

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

                                       C.D .Case- No.06/2019.

Present:-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President,  Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member(W) & Smt. Arati Das,Member.

 

Sri Hiramani Behera, aged about 48 years,

S/O- Sarat Chandra Behera,

R/O- Barapalisahi, Ward No-4,

P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                                               ….       Complainant.

                                                 -Versus-

1.       The Executive  Engineer,

           Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd.,

           At/PO/Ps/Dist-Deogarh,

2.        The Junior Engineer,

           Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd.,

           At/PO/Ps/Dist-Deogarh,

3.       The Chief Executive Engineer,

Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd.,

At/PO-Bhubaneswar,

Dist-Khorda, Odisha.

For the complainant: Sri K.B Meher, Advocate.

For the O.P.No.1,2 & 3 -: Sri Pravash Ch. Mishra, Advocate.

DATE OF HEARING: 04.09.2019,DATE OF  ORDER: 05.09.2019.

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA, PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant belongs to SC category and has applied for digging a Bore well to O.L.I.C., Deogarh. Thereafter he became eligible to get the benefit under the scheme and by the instruction of J.E. O.L.I.C, Deogarh, he has paid Rs. 10,000/- on dtd.10.11.2015 and availed a Registration Certificate under “Biju Krushak Vikas Yojana” vide No- DEO 17871 from the O.P-1. The authorised persons of the O.Ps dug earth up to 150 instead of 250-300 fts deep due to availability of water sufficiently. They fitted pipes, pump and electrification through Solar System and the Bore well functioned properly on testing. It is seen that after running for 40-45 minutes, water came out with mud which is not suitable for use.  The Complainant time to time approached the concerned Official of OLIC Deogarh, but they did not attend him. Finding no way the complainant had decided to bring the matter to the notice of this Forum and filed a Complaint against the O.Ps to seek certain reliefs.

Though the OPs have filed their written version earlier, on the day of hearing they remained absent in the Forum. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant does not comes under the purview of consumer under the Act because he is a beneficiary, not a consumer. It is the specific case of the Complainant that he has been selected to avail a bore well under  scheme in the year 2015 which is generally meant for economically weaker section. The grievance of the Complainant is that the bore well was not successful as per the scheme. The term consumer has been defined in section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in term of service as under:- Consumer means any person who- Hires or avails of any services 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 beneficiary of such services other then 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 who avails of such services for any commercial purpose but excludes  use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment. This term was also explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das”  decided by Supreme Court of India on 20 May, 1994. The comprehensive definition aims at covering every man who pays money as the price or cost of goods and services. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant had paid or had promised to pay any consideration to the opposite party for getting the subsidy, therefore, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer under the Act. It was laid down by the Hon’ble  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Orissa in the case of  Krishi Sahayak-cum-District Agriculture Officer versus Krishna Pradhan, CDA no. 180/2001 decided on 29.7.2010 that the payment of subsidy does not come within the purview of the service as defined in section 2 and a person claiming subsidy cannot be regarded as a consumer. It was observed: Section 2(1) (o) defines service as under:- Service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. However, it needs no great erudition to hold that a central or state subsidy intended for the development of the backward areas or development of irrigation, etc., and grant of incentive for that or any concession over it cannot be labeled as the hiring out of a service by either the State Government or the Central Government. It is somewhat elementary that no one can claim a legal vested right to a subsidy because the same is disbursed through a tortuous process of approval by the officials of the Government Departments and financial sanction of the Government. Hence the O.Ps has not committed any Deficiency in Service. U/S-2(1)(o) as per the Consumer Protection Act-1986 to the complainant and he is not deserved to get any relief from this Forum. The case is disallowed and disposed off.

Office is directed to supply copies of the order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

Order is pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 5^th day of September, 2019 under my hand and seal of this Forum.     

 

I Agree,                                                         I Agree

                 

MEMBER.(W).                                           MEMBER.                            PRESIDENT.         

                                                             Dictated & Corrected  

                                                                            by me.

 

                                                         PRESIDENT.