Haryana State vs Jaswant

R.C. Kathuria, President

HARYANA State through Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 7.8.2001 passed by District Forum, Jhajjar in the complaint filed by Jaswant-complainant, whereby direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party No. 2 to release the subsidy amount to the complainant within one month from the date of the order. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the loan amount of Rs. 40,000 was advanced to the complainant-Jaswant, who is an agriculturist, for the purposes of installation of sprinkler in his land by the Matenhail Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Matenhail - opposite party No. 1. The appellant has promised to pay Rs. 10,000 as subsidy to the complainant on account of loan advanced to him. Accordingly subsidy amount was deposited by the Haryana Government with the bank in the account of the complainant which was subsequently withdrawn. The complainant called upon the opposite party to honour the commitment made to him. But finding no response from the appellant, he filed the present complaint seeking direction against the appellant to pay the subsidy amount of Rs. 10,000 and the damages. The claim was contested by the appellant. It was pleaded in the written statement filed that payment of subsidy was not the pre-condition of the advancement of the loan to the complainant and at no stage any promise to pay the subsidy was extended to the complainant by it and for that reason the complaint merited dismissal.

The District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, accepted the complaint and issued the direction noticed in the earlier part of the order. It is, thereafter, the present appeal has been filed.

AT the threshold of the arguments, the learned Counsel representing the appellant has contended that the patent illegality has been committed by the District Forum in entertaining the complaint because no service has been rendered by the appellant in terms of the requirement of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and for that reason the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Additionally, it was urged by him that payment of subsidy was not a condition-precedent for advancement of the loan to the complainant and on that account the complainant has no right to claim subsidy from the appellant. Opposing the submission made, it was urged by the Counsel representing the respondent No. 1 that the appellant had deposited the subsidy amount with the bank in the account of the complainant and there was no justification for withdrawal of the subsidy amount later on by the appellant. It is manifest from the order of the District Forum that the complaint was accepted primarily on the ground that as per letter P-4 amount of subsidy is available in the CADA agency of opposite party No. 2 and on that basis the complaint was accepted and direction to release the subsidy was given to the opposite party No. 2-appellant. It has not gone into question whether there was any privity of contract between the appellant and the complainant or any written undertaking given by the appellant to provide the subsidy amount to the complainant in the event of loan advanced to him for the purpose of installation of sprinkler. Even otherwise, if it is taken that the complainant was entitled to the subsidy in terms of the letter Ex. P-4 as profounded by him, it cannot be termed that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. This very question has arisen in the case titled as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Gurgaon v. Parma Nand & Others, bearing First Appeal No. 622 of 1997, decided on 7.8.1998 by this Commission. In that case, the complainants had obtained a loan on 6.10.1995 in the sum of Rs. 31,800 from the Primary Land Development Bank, Gurgaon for the purpose of installation of the sprinkler pipe set. They also claimed that they were entitled to subsidy of Rs. 10,000 for which they had approached the authorities but subsidy was not granted to the complainant. It is, thereafter, the complaint was filed. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party. The stand of the opposite party was that though sprinkler pipe set has been purchased from the approved source, but the approval from the Divisional Soil Conservation Officer for advancement of loan was not obtained. The District Forum allowed the complaint and the ordered the respondent No. 2 in that complaint to release the subsidy. This order was challenged in appeal and it was held by the State Commission, Haryana that the complainant was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the order in appeal was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.

THE position noticed in the above mentioned case is almost similar to the facts of the present case. As already noticed that the District Forum has not taken into consideration that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in not granting subsidy to the complainant as pleaded by him. THErefore, the order of the District Forum under appeal cannot be sustained; hence to be setaside. For the aforesaid reasons, we find merit in the appeal and while accepting the appeal, we setaside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint. Appeal allowed.