The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is Govt. of Orissa, Represented through the Collector, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the District Development Manager, Bhaskarganj-A, Balasore, O.P No.3 is the Regional Manager, Odisha Gramya Bank, Vivekananda Marg, Balasore and O.P No.4 is the Branch Manager, Odisha Gramya Bank, Khantapada Branch, Khantapada, Balasore.  

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant had applied for a financial assistance before O.P No.4 to install a solar light under Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (in short, J.N.N.S.M) after completion of all formalities of O.P No.4. The cost of the project is Rs.94,050/- (Rupees Ninety four thousand fifty) only, out of which 20% (i.e. Rs.18,810/-) shall be deposited before O.P No.4 towards down payment and accordingly, loan was sanctioned for Rs.75,240/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand two hundred forty) only on 22.10.2014 in favour of the Complainant, where Bharat Chandra Biswal (brother of the Complainant) is the guarantor, who has offered Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only as security before O.P No.4. Accordingly, the authorised dealer after receiving loan proceeds along with down payment from O.P No.4 had installed solar light in the house of the Complainant. As per the said scheme, the eligibility of subsidy is 40% of actual cost and claim paper which is submitted to O.P No.2 by the O.P No.4, but till date the O.P has not released subsidy in favour of the Complainant, thereby the O.P No.4 has been charging interest against subsidy amount. Thus, the Complainant approached the O.Ps in several occasions and also issued legal notice through registered post to the O.Ps on 28.03.2017 through his Advocate, but the O.Ps did not take any steps till date, causing irreparable loss to the Complainant. Cause of action to file this case arose on 28.03.2017. The Complainant has prayed for disbursal of subsidy, exemption of interest on subsidy amount and release of security amount to the guarantor along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.

                    3. Though sufficient opportunities were given to O.Ps No.1, 3 and 4, but they have not appeared in this case. The O.Ps No.1, 3 and 4 are set ex-parte.

                    4. Written version filed by the O.P No.2, where he has submitted that the O.P No.4 had sanctioned loan to the Complainant for installation of solar light system under JNNSM and thereafter, the head office of O.P No.4 had claimed eligible subsidy in reference of the case on 18.04.2017, which was received by him on 21.04.2017. The subsidy claim was turned down and returned to the head office of O.P No.4 by the O.P No.2 on 16.10.2017 as the claim was received by him on 21.04.2017 i.e. after cut-off date i.e. 18.04.2017, as stipulated by the head office of the O.P No.2. The O.P No.2 was absent at the time of hearing of this case.

                    5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that the cost of the project is Rs.94,050/- (Rupees Ninety four thousand fifty) only, out of which loan of Rs.75,240/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand two hundred forty) only was sanctioned by the O.P No.4 and the subsidy of 40% of actual cost was to be paid by the O.P No.2 on recommendation of O.P No.4 on submission of the required documents. But, the Complainant has not received any subsidy amount after issuance of legal notices to the O.Ps, for which he has compelled to file this case in this Forum praying for disbursal of subsidy, exemption of interest on subsidy amount and release of security amount to the guarantor along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, the O.Ps No.1, 3 and 4 are set ex-parte and the O.P No.2 though filed written version has not taken part in hearing of this case and according to him, he has received the claim of eligible subsidy in reference of the case by O.P No.4 on 21.04.2017 though due date was on 18.04.2017, for which it cannot be considered. So, it shows that the delay is caused by the O.P No.4 regarding subsidy of claim. But, the reason for delay has not been clarified on behalf of the O.P No.4 as he has been set ex-parte. The O.Ps No.1 to 3 are added as Parties by the Complainant, but nothing has been clarified that why they have been added as Parties in this case. So, the sole responsibility focused on O.P No.4. But, the documents filed in this case regarding subsidy shows that in column-3, it has been mentioned that “Amount of Capital Subsidy- Capital subsidy is limited to 40% of the total benchmark cost for SPV system with battery up to 300 WP, limited to Rs.108/- per system with CFL based lighting system and Rs.180/- for WP system with LED based lighting system. Further, capital subsidy is limited to 30% of the bench mark cost for HPV system (with battery) of above 300 WP and up to 1000 WP limited to Rs.81/- per WP for system with CFL based lighting system and Rs.135/- per WP for system with LED based lighting system. The above subsidy pattern will be the same for all categories of borrowers (SC/ST, women, small farmers, physically handicapped etc.) and also irrespective of the location of the unit.” So, in the present case, the benchmark cost and the actual cost are not clarified by the Parties. However, the Complainant is entitled for subsidy as claimed as per the above circular. 

                    6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I am in the opinion that the O.P No.4 is liable to pay the subsidy amount to the Complainant as per the guidelines of column-3 as mentioned above within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum followed both towards pendente lite and future interest. The O.P No.4 is also liable for payment of compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount of compensation and litigation cost from the date of order till realization. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed in part on ex-parte against the O.P No.4 with cost and the case is dismissed on contest against the O.P No.2 and on ex-parte against the O.Ps No.1 & 3 without cost. The O.P No.4 is directed to pay the subsidy amount to the Complainant as per the guidelines of column-3 as mentioned above within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum followed both towards pendente lite and future interest. The O.P No.4 is also liable for payment of compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount of compensation and litigation cost from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.P No.4 as per Law in case of failure by the O.P No.4 to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 25th day of January, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.