Heard the learned counsel for appellant and respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the   complainant applied for agricultural loan  from OP No.3 under the scheme  of APICOL  for purchasing a tractor and accordingly complainant deposited  Rs.1,68,000/- with OP No.3 who sanctioned Rs.5,02,000/- and handed over the D.D.  to the complainant for the  purchase of tractor from OP No.1. Complainant alleged inter-alia that he had  handed over  the DD alongwith Agro permit to OP No.1 who delivered the tractor with accessories  and trolley. The complainant alleged that although he had applied for loan under agricultural scheme being entitled to subsidy,  the complainant was deprived  of availing same due to negligence of the OP. So, he filed the complaint.

4.            All the Ops filed the written version separately. It is averred in the written version of OP No.1 that  he has supplied  a quotation on 20.04.2013 for finance of a tractor and accordingly complainant produced the D.D. of Rs.6,70,000/- issued by Union Bank of India. After receipt  of the DD OP No.1 delivered Swaraj Tractor with  trailer  on 25.12.2013. Thus, they have no deficiency in service.

5.               OP No.2  being the manufacturer has admitted in the written version  to have supplied the Swaraj tractor to the OP No.1 who supplied the same to the complainant.

6.                 OP No.3 had admitted in their written version to have sanctioned loan of Rs.5,02,000/-  after deposit of Rs.1,68,000/- by the complainant, the entire D.D. for Rs.6,70,000/- was issued by the OP No.3 to OP No.1. OP No.3 denied about any applicability of SRTO tractor loan to the complainant.

     7.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum  passed the following order:-

                  Xxxxx              xxxxxxxx              xxxxxx

                 “The OP No.1 is directed to refund Rs.90,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Further all the Ops are directed to pay Rs.45,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order. “

8.                Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the fact and circumstances of the case. According to him SRTO loan was not sanctioned  by OP No.3 to the complainant because the benefit of agricultural  subsidy was only made available on 15.05.2014 to the complainant whereas  he has  incurred loan in 2013. Learned District Forum ought to have considered the documents where from it is revealed that the loan was granted in 2013 whereas the agricultural benefit of the loanee was only extended in 2014. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

9.              Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that  learned District Forum has gone through the material on record  and disposed the matter, that is why he has no objection to the impugned order. He only submits that there is no direction to the appellant to refund the subsidy  but all the Ops have been  rightly  asked to pay complainant of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant.

10.             Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties,    perused the DFR and  impugned order.

11.           It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the tractor and trolley  having incurred loan from OP No.3. It is also not in dispute that on 31.10.2013 entire  amount of Rs.6,70,000/- was paid towards purchasing of the tractor. The certificate of Director of Agriculture and Food Production,Odisha shows that the permit was issued to the complainant on 15.05.2014. When  the tractor was purchased in 2013 and permit only issued on 2014, it must be held that the complainant was only allowed to avail loan without any assistance of Director,Agriculture and  Food Production,Bhubaneswar,Govt. of Odisha. This aspect has not been  considered by the learned District Forum. On the otherhand when the benefit was approved  only in 2014 and tractor was purchased in 2013, obviously the complainant has failed to avail subsidy under agricultural loan  scheme and learned District Forum has also not applied judicial mind  to this aspect. Since, the loan has been granted in normal course, the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant is hardly to have been proved. Moreover, OP No.1 has not filed appeal.  Be that as it may, we are of the view that  the present appellant having no fault should not be directed to pay  compensation alongwith OP No.1 to complainant.  Therefore, the impugned order  with regard to the liability  to the present appellant is set-aside. Appeal is allowed. No cost.                 

                    Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                     DFR be sent back forthwith.