Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1198/2019

Smt. Ramneet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Union Territory through the Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Chandigarh Administra - Opp.Party(s)

Harit Sharma Adv. & Tushar Sharma Adv.

12 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1198/2019
Date of Institution	:	27.12.2019
Date of Decision	:	12.08.2022

 

                     

            

 

Smt.Ramneet Kaur wife of  Sh.Narinder Singh Chadha r/o House NO.3068, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. The Union Territory through the Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Chandigarh Administration, 4th Floor, Union Territory Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh -160009.

 

2. The Chief Executive Officer,   Chandigarh Renewable Energy and Science Technologies Promotion Society (CREST), 1st Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Harit Sharma, Adv. for the complainant
	Sh.Aditya Grover, Adv. for OP No.2. OP No.1 exparte.

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

1.     Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  the owners of one kanal plot are required to get the solar plant installed on their roof tops as per the notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration. As per the policy of OP No.2, 30% subsidy was to be released after commissioning of SPV Power Plant and accordingly, the complainant was issued letter dated 11.06.2018 giving ID No.SPV20185172025 (Annexure C-1).  She got installed 5 KW on grid system from Kirloskar Integrated Technologies Pvt. Ltd. by paying Rs.3.00 lakhs through cheque and later on she was issued invoice dated 11.07.2018. After installation of the Solar Plant, SDE, Electy. OP S/Divn. No.3, Chandigarh issued memo dated 01.10.2018 stating that the installation was checked and found in order and accordingly, the inspection was cleared.  It has further been averred that at the same time, Solar PV Plan was also got installed by the immediate neighbor i.e. Justice Vinod Sharma (Retd.). Both the complainant and Justice Vinod Sharma (Retd.) got installed the solar PV Plan from the same firm and at the same time. However the subsidy to Justice Vinod Sharma (Retd.) was released more than 6 months ago but the same has not been released to her despite repeated requests. Subsequently, she got served a legal notice dated 11.11.2019 upon the OPs but to no effect.  However, OP No.2 replied vide letter dated 26.11.2019 that the subsidy has not been received from MNRE (GOI) and as and when it is received, the same is to be released. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.   
2.     None appeared on behalf of OP No.1 despite giving so many opportunities to appear before this Commission and finally, vide order dated 27.08.2021, it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
3.     In its written statement, OP No.2 has stated that it being a nodal agency, every year through e-tendering invites applications qua empanelment from the manufacturers /system integrators/bidders for rooftop grid connected SPV Power plants at Chandigarh for 1KPW upto 100 KWP.   It has further been stated that the complainant vide letter dated 1.06.2018 much prior to the commissioning was duly informed that 30% subsidy was to be released after commissioning of SPV Power plan and receipt from MNRE, GOI on the basis of L1 rates of different categories arrived through e-tendering which are followed w.e.f. 01.04.2017 or as decided by Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, Govt. of India, time to time, whichever is lower and the complainant was also required to inform the answering respondent for its verification and thereafter the verification report along with joint commissioning report was to be forwarded to MNRE, GOI for release of capital subsidy.  It has further been stated that the commissioning/installation of the SPV Power plant was done on 05.10.2018 and the empaneled vendor submitted the documents/file on 11.03.2019 on behalf of the complainant for initiating the process qua getting the subsidy released from MNRE. Accordingly, a SR.No.SC/SCJ/786 was assigned to the document file pertaining to the complainant for the purposes of initiating the process for getting the subsidy released from MNRE.  Further, vide order dated 26.07.2018, an amount of Rs.2.70 crores had been sanctioned by the MNRE, GOI and the whole amount was utilized for releasing the subsidies as per the serial number on the file assigned to the beneficiaries.  Further, MNRE vide its order dated 27.12.2019 sanctioned/released an amount of Rs.5,13,23,598/- as CFA/subsidy to be released to the beneficiaries.  It has further been stated that  on 08.06.2020, they have released the subsidy of Rs.81,000/- in the account of the complainant. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.     The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating her own.
5.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties  and have gone through the documents on record as well as written submissions.
6.     The learned Counsel for OP No.2 has vehemently argued that the instant compliant before this Commission is not maintainable as the grouse of the complainant relates to release of the subsidy amount granted by the MNRE, Govt. of India. In this view of the matter, the first and foremost question to be determined in this case is as to whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in view of the principle of law down in Revision Petition No.3105 of 2017 titled as titled as Gauri Devagan Vs. Priyadarshani Gas Agency and Others decided on 25.06.2018 by the Hon'ble National Commission in which it was held as under:-

“5.      The State Commission has rightly observed that the subsidy amount is sent directly to the bank account by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, hence local dealer and local bank have very limited role and no deficiency in service can be attributed to the opposite parties.  Moreover, the person claiming subsidy is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as held by this Commission in Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and Anr, Revision Petition No.4894 of 2012, decided on 08.02.2013 wherein it has been held that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a 'consumer', as the subsidy is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and his remedy does not lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by filing a complaint and that he can seek relief from a Civil Court, or some other forum, as per law.  Thus, the petitioner is not a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence, the complaint was not maintainable.

 

7.      Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition.  Accordingly revision petition No.3105 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage”.

 

7.     In the present case also, the grievance of the complainant is regarding the release of subsidy amount as per the policy/scheme of OP No.2 issued vide letter dated 11.06.2018 (Annexure C-1) on commissioning of the SPV Power Plan and receipt from the MNRE, GOI on the basis of L1 rates of different categories arrived through e-mail tendering etc.   As held in the judgment (supra), a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a 'consumer', as the subsidy is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and his/her remedy does not lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by filing a complaint and that she/he can seek relief from a Civil Court, or some other Forum, as per law. 
8.     In view of the ratio of law settled by the Hon'ble National Commission in the aforesaid judgment, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning Consumer Protection Act and the complainant can seek relief from a Civil Court, or some other forum, as per law.
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court or some other Forum as per law for redressal of his grievance.
10.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 12/08/2022
	Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER