The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Managing Director, Agricultural Promotion and Investment Co-operation of Odisha Ltd., Bhubaneswar, O.P No.2 is the Collector-cum-Chairman, Dist. Level Scrutiny Sub-Committee, Balasore, O.P No.3 is the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Balasore Range, Balasore, O.P No.4 is the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and O.P No.5 is the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Balasore Branch, Balasore.   

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant in order to establish an Agro Service Centre under Agriculture Sector and after proper verification and duly approved by the District Level Scrutiny Sub-Committee on dtd.05.05.2017, estimated to Rs.35,66,500/- (Rupees Thirty five lacs sixty six thousand five hundred) only (cost of the project), where admissible subsidy is of Rs.17,83,250/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs eighty three thousand two hundred fifty) only and accordingly, recommended to the O.P No.1 to release the same in favour of the Complainant vide their resolution dtd.05.05.2017.  On receipt of application from the Complainant to establish an Agro project in the year 2014, the O.P No.3 forwarded the same to the O.P No.1 and the O.Ps after verification, issued Go-Ahead letter to the Complainant on 29.11.2014 being the project cost of Rs.50.00 Lacs (Rupees Fifty lacs) only with 50% subsidy of project cost to be completed within 27.11.2017. Accordingly, the Complainant purchased the equipments like one tractor and trolley, one harvester along with accessories etc. costing in toto of Rs.35,66,500/- (Rupees Thirty five lacs sixty six thousand five hundred) only, being financed by O.P No.5-Union Bank of India, Balasore Branch, who issued evaluation certificate of Rs.35,66,500/- (Rupees Thirty five lacs sixty six thousand five hundred) only for cost of the project after completion of the project and project is in working condition for release of subsidy, thereby the O.P No.2 on 05.05.2017 recommended to the O.P No.1 for release of subsidy of Rs.17,83,250/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs eighty three thousand two hundred fifty) only (50% of project cost) and also issued a letter in this regard to the Complainant on 03.06.2017, as per provisions of the State Agril  Policy-2013, subsidy to be credited to the account of the Complainant. The O.P No.3 issued a letter to the O.P No.1 on dtd.27.06.2017 with a request to release subsidy for the aforesaid amount. But, the Complainant received a letter  from O.P No.1 on 01.08.2017 intimating that a sum of Rs.16,85,782/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs eighty five thousand seven hundred eighty two) only has been sent to the loan account of the Complainant in Union Bank, Balasore towards subsidy against actual subsidy of Rs.17,83,250/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs eighty three thousand two hundred fifty) only, which is less of Rs.97,468/- (Rupees Ninety seven thousand four hundred sixty eight) only. On an enquiry by the Complainant with O.P No.2 to 6, none of these O.Ps provided any satisfactory reply about lesser payment of subsidy of Rs.97,468/- (Rupees Ninety seven thousand four hundred sixty eight) only and accordingly, the Complainant wrote a letter to the O.P No.1 on 28.08.2017 asking him to pay less paid subsidy. Since the matter was unattended, the Complainant issued one Advocate notice on 03.11.2017 requesting to pay/release the lesser paid subsidy of Rs.97,468/- (Rupees Ninety seven thousand four hundred sixty eight) only and reply of the said notice has been received by the Advocate along with a copy to the Complainant, wherein it has been intimated that the Commissioner-cum-Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha vide letter dtd.08.07.2015 has communicated the State Level Technical Committee (S.L.T.C) approved makes and models of different farm equipments and approved indicative cost against each equipments, based on which the eligible project cost is finalised and on basing the above said principle/ guideline, the project cost of the Complainant has been estimated to Rs.34,05,621/- (Rupees Thirty four lacs five thousand six hundred twenty one) only and accordingly, 50% subsidy comes to Rs.17,02,810/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs two thousand eight hundred ten) only along with 1% processing fees i.e. Rs.17,028/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand twenty eight) only has been deducted and the rest of amount i.e. Rs.16,85,782/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs eighty five thousand seven hundred eighty two) only has been released and as they have done in accordance with the guidelines by S.L.T.C and they are correct in their work. Moreover, the O.P No.1 in their reply letter has also drawn a table indicating the difference of rates of items purchased by the Complainant as well as recommended by the District Level Scrutiny Sub-committee to that of the rates approved by the S.L.T.C. As per list of the implements/ Equipments for A.S.C/ procurement thereof, it has been specifically mentioned that the procurement would be from the approved suppliers/ manufactures as per the S.L.T.C. The beneficiary is free to procure any brand as per his choice from the approved list. For non-standard items/ items in which no S.L.T.C approval has been accorded, the beneficiary will have to procure those items on the basis of at least three quotations obtained from manufactures/ authorised dealers having TIN/SRIN number. No indication of any standard rates with regards to the cost of the materials was not given to the Complainant by all the O.Ps at any point of time since 2014 to 2017 i.e. from the date of application for establishment of project till the date of release of subsidy  nor the Complainant was intimated with regards to S.L.T.C rate for farm equipments as well as the Complainant was never intimated with 1% process fees has to be deducted over the subsidy amount released by any of the O.Ps at any point of time from the beginning up to the release of subsidy amount and for the 1st time, the matter came to the knowledge of the Complainant. Due to such defective communication of guidelines which otherwise can be sold as deficiencies in providing service by all the O.Ps and more lack of communication with regards to establishment and purchase of farm materials, the Complainant has to face a loss of Rs.97,468/- (Rupees Ninety seven thousand four hundred sixty eight) only without any of his fault and for which, all the O.Ps and particularly O.P No.1 is directly responsible and as he is avoiding to take the responsibility of financial loss committed to the Complainant for providing deficiency of service and causing mental agony to the Complainant. Cause of action arose on 29.11.2014 and on 07.11.2017. The Complainant has prayed for release of less paid subsidy amount, not debiting interest on less paid subsidy amount along with compensation for mental agony.

                    3. Written version filed by the O.P No.1 through his authorised representative denying on the point of jurisdiction. The O.P No.1 has further submitted that the O.P No.1 received the subsidy proposal of the Complainant from the Office of the District Agriculture Office, Balasore on 03.07.2017. The cost of M.B Plough mentioned by the Complainant is Rs.26,000/- (Rupees Twenty six thousand) only, whereas, according to the bill, the cost of the M.B Plough including taxes is Rs.28,000/- (Rupees Twenty eight thousand) only. The O.P No.2 has recommended to release Rs.17,83,250/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs eighty three thousand two hundred fifty) only as subsidy. After verification of the subsidy proposal by O.P No.1 and as per the guidelines of State Agriculture Policy and rate of machineries approved by State Level Technical Committee (S.L.T.C), subsidy amounting to Rs.17,02,810/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs two thousand eight hundred ten) only and after deduction of 1% processing fee of Rs.17,028/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand twenty eight) only, the net amount of Rs.16,85,782/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs eighty five thousand seven hundred eighty two) only has been released in favour of the Complainant. The O.P No.1 vide letter dtd.07.11.2017 had communicated the reasons for difference in the subsidy amount recommended by the DLSSC and actual subsidy released in response to the Complainant letter and Advocate notice. Further, as per the above guidelines, the total eligible project cost in the above case comes to Rs.34,05,621/- (Rupees Thirty four lacs five thousand six hundred twenty one) only. Since the Complainant belongs to S.C category, the subsidy has been calculated @ 50% of the eligible project cost amounting to Rs.17,02,810/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs two thousand eight hundred ten) only. The processing fee @ 1% of subsidy amount of Rs.17,028/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand twenty eight) only has been deducted, which is deducted to meet the administrative expenses of the O.P No.1. The details of cost against individual implement as per bills submitted by the Complainant and the eligible cost as per the approved make and model of the individual implement is placed herewith.  The O.P No.1 is the Govt. agency for disbursement of subsidy under the State Agriculture Policy and custodian of the Govt. fund. It has to operate as per the policy and guidelines for release of subsidy. For any deviation in the policy guidelines for release of subsidy, O.P No.1 will be held liable for any excess payment of subsidy. Subsidy is not a Consumer product and hence, not coming under the jurisdiction of this District Forum. So, the O.P No.1 is not at fault in releasing subsidy to the Complainant and he may be absolved from paying any differential amount of subsidy and penalty on the matter. Neither the O.P No.1 nor his authorised representative was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    4. Though the O.P No.2 has appeared through his Authorised Representative Sri Kailash Chandra Parida, DDA, Balasore, but has not filed his written version in this case. Neither the O.P No.2 nor his authorised representative was present at the time of hearing of this case.

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

                    6. Written version filed by the O.P No.5 through his advocate denying on the point of cause of action. The O.P No.5 has further submitted that the Bank has financed to the Complainant’s Agriculture sector after approval of the Govt. of Odisha, Department of Agriculture through O.P No.2. Thereafter, it is admitted by the Complainant in his petition, that on 01.08.2017, the O.P No.1 sent a letter to the Complainant intimating that a sum of Rs.16,85,782/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs eighty five thousand seven hundred eighty two) only has been sent to the loan account of the Complainant in Union Bank, Balasore branch towards payment of subsidy against the total amount of the project cost of Rs.35,66,500/- (Rupees Thirty five lacs sixty six thousand five hundred) only. So, the Govt. of Odisha, Agriculture Department sent the subsidy to the Complainant through O.P No.5-Bank and the O.P No.5 is only entitled to disburse or receive the only said amount. Also, the O.P No.1 intimated to the Complainant on 08.07.2015 that according to principle/guideline of the project cost of Rs.34,05,621/- (Rupees Thirty four lacs five thousand six hundred twenty one) only after deducting of 1% processing fees and Rs.16,85,782/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs eighty five thousand seven hundred eighty two) only as subsidy amount was released in favour of the Complainant by the Department. As the O.P No.5-Bank has no locus standi to disburse any subsidy amount in favour of the Complainant, so the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed against O.P.No.5 with cost.

                    7. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    8. 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 after receipt of Go-Ahead letter dtd.29.11.2014 issued by the O.P No.3 allowing for establishment of the Agro Service Centre project under agriculture sector, where entitlement of subsidy to the tune of 50% of Project cost is admissible after successful establishment and trial of the project and the said project to be executed through bank finance. Thereafter, the O.P No.5 (Bank) issued an Evaluation certificate certifying total capital investment of Rs.35,66,500/- (Rupees Thirty five lacs sixty six thousand five hundred) only in the above said project and confirming said capitals/ assets are working/ in-use in the Farm and are actually required in process of operation, followed by sanction advice dtd.25.11.2016 disclosing total project cost of Rs.35,66,500/- (Rupees Thirty five lacs sixty six thousand five hundred) only. Accordingly, the O.P No.2 and 3 on dtd.03.06.2017 issued subsidy approval certificate to the Complainant allowing to receive capital investment subsidy to the tune of Rs.17,83,250/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs eighty three thousand two hundred fifty) only on approval of District Level Scrutiny Sub-Committee meeting held on 05.05.2017 headed by Chairman (O.P No.2) and Member (O.P No.3) and DDM, NABARD (Member) and on this bases of detailed valuation/ evaluation by the O.P No.3 as per provisions contained in the State Agril. Policy-2013, which shall be credited to the account of the Complainant maintained with O.P No.5. Thus, the O.P No.3 vide his letter dtd.27.06.2017 informed to O.P No.1 to release subsidy of Rs.17,83,250/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs eighty three thousand two hundred fifty) only in favour of the Complainant. But, the O.P No.1 vide his letter dtd.28.07.2017 informed to O.P No.2 regarding release of subsidy of Rs.16,85,782/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs eighty five thousand seven hundred eighty two) only for credit in the account of the Complainant against actual subsidy of Rs.17,83,250/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs eighty three thousand two hundred fifty) only, which is lesser by Rs.97,468/- (Rupees Ninety seven thousand four hundred sixty eight) only. Being aggrieved, the Complainant informed in written to the O.P No.1 on 28.08.2017 requesting to pay less paid subsidy followed by an Advocate notice on 03.11.2017. In reply to the Advocate notice, the O.P No.1 vide his letter dtd.07.11.2017 informed the Complainant as well as his Advocate that Commissioner-Cum-Director of Agriculture of Food production, Odisha vide letter dtd.08.07.2015 has Communicated the State Level Technical Committee (SLTC) approved makes and models of different farm equipments and the approval indicative cost against each equipment based on which the eligible project cost is finalized for Rs.34,05,621/- (Rupees Thirty four lacs five thousand six hundred twenty one) only and subsidy @ 50% of project cost comes to Rs.17,02,810/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs two thousand eight hundred ten) only. The processing fees @ 1% of subsidy amount i.e. Rs.17,028/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand twenty eight) only has been deducted, which has not been intimated to the Complainant at any point of time. Hence, net subsidy amount released is Rs.16,85,782/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs eighty five thousand seven hundred eighty two) only. The Complainant has sustained mental agony for the defective communication of guidelines by the O.Ps in general and O.P No.1 in particular, which amounts to deficiency in service. Thus, the Complainant has filed this case for release of less paid subsidy not debiting interest on less paid subsidy along with compensation. On the other hand, the O.P.No.1 as well as his authorised representative was absent at the time of hearing. He has submitted that the O.P No.2 has recommended to release Rs.17,83,250/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs eighty three thousand two hundred fifty) only as subsidy. After verification of the subsidy proposal by O.P No.1 and as per the guidelines of State Agriculture Policy and rate of machineries approved by State Level Technical Committee (S.L.T.C), subsidy amounting to Rs.17,02,810/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs two thousand eight hundred ten) only and after deduction of 1% processing fee of Rs.17,028/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand twenty eight) only, the net amount of Rs.16,85,782/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs eighty five thousand seven hundred eighty two) only has been released in favour of the Complainant. The O.P No.1 vide letter dtd.07.11.2017 had communicated the reasons for difference in the subsidy amount recommended by the DLSSC and actual subsidy released in response to the Complainant letter and Advocate notice. Further, as per the above guidelines, the total eligible project cost in the above case comes to Rs.34,05,621/- (Rupees Thirty four lacs five thousand six hundred twenty one) only. Since the Complainant belongs to S.C category, the subsidy has been calculated @ 50% of the eligible project cost amounting to Rs.17,02,810/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs two thousand eight hundred ten) only. The processing fee @ 1% of subsidy amount of Rs.17,028/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand twenty eight) only has been deducted, which is deducted to meet the administrative expenses of the O.P No.1. Neither the O.P No.2 nor his authorised representative was present at the time of hearing of this case and has not filed his written version in this case. The O.Ps No.3 and 4 are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. It has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.5 that the Bank has financed to the Complainant’s Agriculture sector after approval of the Govt. of Odisha, Department of Agriculture through O.P No.2. Thereafter, it is admitted by the Complainant in his petition, that on 01.08.2017, the O.P No.1 sent a letter to the Complainant intimating that a sum of Rs.16,85,782/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs eighty five thousand seven hundred eighty two) only has been sent to the loan account of the Complainant in Union Bank, Balasore branch towards payment of subsidy against the total amount of the project cost of Rs.35,66,500/- (Rupees Thirty five lacs sixty six thousand five hundred) only. So, the Govt. of Odisha, Agriculture Department sent the subsidy to the Complainant through O.P No.5-Bank and the O.P No.5 is only entitled to disburse or receive the only said amount. Also, the O.P No.1 intimated to the Complainant on 08.07.2015 that according to principle/guideline of the project cost of Rs.34,05,621/- (Rupees Thirty four lacs five thousand six hundred twenty one) only after deducting of 1% processing fees and Rs.16,85,782/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs eighty five thousand seven hundred eighty two) only as subsidy amount was released in favour of the Complainant by the Department.

                    9. So, basing on these materials, the project cost of the Complainant was Rs.35,66,500/- (Rupees Thirty five lacs sixty six thousand five hundred) only and basing on it, 50% subsidy will be Rs.17,83,250/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs eighty three thousand two hundred fifty) only. But, the project cost was estimated by O.P No.1 is Rs.34,05,621/- (Rupees Thirty four lacs five thousand six hundred twenty one) only, from which 50% subsidy amounts to Rs.17,02,810/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs two thousand eight hundred ten) only and after deducting 1% processing fees of Rs.17,028/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand twenty eight) only, the rest amount comes to Rs.16,85,782/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs eighty five thousand seven hundred eighty two) only, which has actually paid to the Complainant through his Bank account. So, there is difference of Rs.97,468/- (Rupees Ninety seven thousand four hundred sixty eight) only towards the subsidy. But, initially, the Complainant was directed to go-ahead vide letter dtd.29.11.2014 issued by the O.P No.3. So, what measures come in between to reduce the amount as mentioned above. There is no material evidence in support of O.P No.1. On the other hand, the argument of the Complainant seems to be genuine and acceptable. Further, 1% of processing fee is to be deducted, which seems to be genuine to meet the administrative expenses. So, if that will be deducted from the required amount, the Complainant is not to be prejudiced in our opinion. But, non-payment of entire amount of subsidy as discussed above, there is deficiency of service on the part of the State Govt. In support of it, the Advocate for Complainant has relied upon the authority reported in 2005 (I) OLR (CSR)-27 in the case of Executive Engineer. Harihar Jore Irrigation Division and another (Vrs.) Anirudha Sahu and same in the authority reported in 1995 (I) CLT-268 (N.C) in the case of M/s. Bellathi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Vrs.) Selvaraj & etc., wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi that only when subsidy is actually paid, loan amount gets proportionally reduced and the liability for interest will be for the full amount of the loan, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in charging interest on the full amount. But, there is deficiency of service on the part of the State Government, which was to refund a part of loan amount in the form of subsidy to the farmers and to be credited to the loan account with the Bank.

                    10. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principles laid down by the above Authorities as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that 50% of project cost of Rs.35,66,500/- (Rupees Thirty five lacs sixty six thousand five hundred) only amounts to Rs.17,83,250/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs eighty three thousand two hundred fifty) only and from it, 1% processing fess of Rs.17,833/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand eight hundred thirty three) only is to be deducted, which amounts to Rs.17,65,417/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs sixty five thousand four hundred seventeed) only and out of it, he has already received Rs.16,85,782/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs eighty five thousand seven hundred eighty two) only, for which he is only to get Rs.79,635/- (Rupees Seventy nine thousand six hundred thirty five) only from the O.Ps No.1 to 4, who are jointly and severally liable for the same. In the peculiar circumstances, no compensation is to be paid by the O.Ps No.1 to 4 and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only is to be paid by the O.Ps No.1 to 4 to the Complainant. The total amount of Rs.79,635/- (Rupees Seventy nine thousand six hundred thirty five) only along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only is to be paid by the O.Ps No.1 to 4 within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the whole amount including the total amount along with litigation cost from the date of order till realization. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps No.1 & 2 and on ex-parte against the O.Ps No.3 & 4 with cost and the case is dismissed against the O.P No.5 without cost. The O.Ps No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.79,635/- (Rupees Seventy nine thousand six hundred thirty five) only along with 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 whole amount including the total amount along with litigation cost from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps No.1 to 4 as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps No.1 to 4 to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 20th day of August, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.