By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Mermber:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite parties to pay Rs. 8,51,860/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 2008 June till the payment of the amount being the subsidy amount which the Complainant is entitled to get and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant is the Managing Partner of a small industrial unit engaged in food processing and manufacturing of bakery products with 881 registration having its production unit at KINFRA Industrial Park Chundale, Wayanad and having FSSAI registration and ISO certificate. The unit is functioning since 27.07.2007. The 3^rd Opposite party started a scheme for providing subsidy to the Food processing unit like that of Complainant's firm. In the year 2007 itself the Complainant had given application for subsidy. As per rule, the application and documents should be processed through 1^st Opposite party. The communications with Government and 2^nd Opposite Party shall be done through 1^st Opposite Party and all communication from Government and 2^nd Opposite Party are also done through 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant had submitted all the necessary documents as required by the Opposite Parties on different occasions from 2007 onwards. The Complainant had submitted registration certificate project report, affidavit, agreement to grant financial aid, revised affidavit certificate of valuation, Bio data of all partners, security bond, surety bond etc on several occasions. But 1^st Opposite party extended the time for crediting the amount of subsidy on several occasions by saying one or another reason. The Complainant submitted application on 25.03.2008, but not received subsidy so far. The Opposite parties purposefully delayed the disbursement of subsidy. The act of Opposite Parties is deficiency of service. Aggrieved by this , the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite parties and 1^st Opposite Party appeared and filed version. 2^nd Opposite Party did not appear and did not file version and 2^nd Opposite Party is set exparte. In the version of 1^st Opposite party, 1^st Opposite Party contended that the Complainant is not maintainable under section 69 of Partnership Act. The firm run by the Complainant is a commercial firm and not coming under the definition of consumer. The 1^st Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant had business account with 1^st Opposite Party and also the Complainant submitted application for getting subsidy in the year 2007 and it was forwarded to 2^nd Opposite Party in time. The 2^nd Opposite party informed the 1^st Opposite party to forward the CGA registration certificate of the Complainant and 1^st Opposite party timely informed this aspect to the Complainant. But Complainant failed to entrust the CGA registration certificate to 1^st Opposite party and 1^st Opposite party could not forward the same to 2^nd Opposite party. Thereafter the Complainant informed the 1^st opposite party that the Complainant on 06.06.2014 had registered with government and had CGA registration certificate and it was lost and also the government had given log on ID and password to the Complainant in website www.cpsms.hic.in and that password is also lost. The 1^st Opposite party is only an agent between Complainant and 2^nd Opposite party. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite party.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties?

2. Relief and costs.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A17. The 1^st Opposite party filed proof affidavit and is examined as OPW1 and documents are marked as Ext.B1 to B3. In the cross examination of Complainant, the Complainant stated that the firm is registered under Partnership Act and there are 4 partner in the firm. The Complainant is the Managing Partner and other partners not authorised him to file this complaint. The complaint is filed because the complainant is a Managing Partner. The firm is doing Bakery business and have four outlet and having a turn over of 10 Lakh per month. The Complainant do not know that any fees is paid to 1^st Opposite party for the service of availing subsidy from Government. The Complainant admitted the Ext.B2 letter send by the Central government and also admitted Ext.B1 letter also. In answer to the Exts.B1 and B2 letters, the Complainant admitted that the Complainant's firm gave a reply to the 1^st Opposite party stating that the Complainant's firm could not produce the CGA certificate since the login ID and password is lost from them. The case of 1^st Opposite party is that the 1^st Opposite party do not have the login ID and password of Complainant's firm and stated that since it is a secret number, the Complainant alone knows the number. As per Ext.B3 document, it is seen that the Complainant firm lost the number. On analysing the evidence, the Forum found that there is no chance that the bank keeps the login ID and password of Complainant's firm. Since it is secret one. The 1^st Opposite party timely informed the Complainant about all communications from 2^nd Opposite party and the Complainant admitted the same. On perusal, the Forum found that there is no deficiency from the side of 1^st Opposite party in doing the service. The 2^nd Opposite Party also cannot process the application without getting the required documents from the Complainant. So there is no deficiency of service from the part of 2^nd Opposite party also. More over the Forum found that the Complaint is not maintainable before the Forum because of the fact that the Complainant's firm is doing business and having turn over for more than 10 Lakhs per months. So the Complainant will not come under the definition of consumer as stated in section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act of 1986.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of September 2015.

Date of Filing:20.01.2015.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Rajeev Antony Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Prasanth. E Branch Manager, Canara bank, Chundel.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Letter. dt:08.05.2014

A2. Copy of Certificate.

A3. Copy of Affidavit.

A4. Copy of Surety Bond dt:07.04.2014.

A5. Copy of Extract from the Minutes of the Partnership firm – M/s United Food

Products, Kalpetta.

A6. Copy of Letter. dt:26.04.2014.

A7. Copy of Acknowledging receipt of Documents. dt:20.10.2012.

A8. Copy of Surety Bond. dt:06.01.2012.

A9. Copy of Letter. dt:16.12.2011.

A10. Copy of Letter. dt:20.05.2010.

A11. Copy of Letter. dt:11.07.2008.

A12. Copy of Surety Bond.

A13. Copy of Letter. dt:16.09.2008.

A14. Extract of the resolution passed by the partners of

United Food Products on 05.01.2015.

A15. Document showing that the first installment of subsidy

was sanctioned on 26.03.2008. (Photocopy).

A16. Copy of certificate.

A17. Copy of Letter. dt:08.05.2014.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

B1. Copy of Letter. dt:20.09.2012.

B2. Copy of Letter. dt:02.05.2014.

B3. Copy of Letter. dt:06.06.2014.