Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of complainant, in nutshell is that the agent of OP No.2 contacted the complainant to purchase the tractor from the office of the OP No.2,then the complainant went to the office of J.A.O.,Binka who granted permit on 28.09.2006 which was sent to the office of OP No.1 for approval of subsidy and after approval of D.M.,OAIC,Sonepur ,OP No.1 sanctioned the loan amount. It is alleged inter-alia that a sum of Rs.3,79,429/- has been sanctioned by the OP No.1 including the subsidy amount of Rs.30,000/- adjusted. It is alleged that inspite of request the subsidy amount of Rs.30,000/- has not been disbursed. Therefore, the complaint is filed.
4. The OP No.1 is set-exparte but participated in the hearing by submission that he has no deficiency in service and no order communicated for release of the subsidy amount.
5. OP No.2 has been set-exparte.
6. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“The OP No.2 is directed to release the subsidy amount in favour of the complainant if the same has not been released in the mean time. He is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as composite compensation towards mental agony, compensation and cost of litigation. All these should be done within a period of one month from the date of order. Complaint is partly allowed.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum passed the impugned order by not considering the fact that the complainant has failed to prove its case and deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2. According to him the OP No.2 has not agreed and sanctioned loan amount although complainant has falsely alleged so. He submitted that complainant has not filed a scrap of paper of OP No.2 to prove his submission. So, he submitted that learned District Forum has passed the order without proper application of material on record. He also drew attention to the Govt. of India Circular where the complainant is to purchase the tractor from OP No.2 or stratacal Organisation. But the tractor is purchased from private organization without being sponsored by OP No.2. He also submitted that complaint is not maintainable for any sort of sanction of subsidy. He submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. It appears that the entire order has been passed against the OP No.2-appellant. In fact, on perusal of the record it does not show a single document sanctioning loan with subsidy by the OP No.2 for the complainant to purchase the tractor. When the complainant has not proved his case against OP No.2 by filing relevant document, the complaint case on merit fails against the appellant.
10. The case is filed only for non-sanction/non-payment of subsidy amount. It is reported in Indian Oil Co. Ltd. -Vrs- Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 07.11.2017 that subsidy is not a matter of right in consumer case.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, we hereby do not agree with the view of the learned District Forum and as such same is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside.
Appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Statutory amount be refunded.
