AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COUNSEL for the appellants is not present and there is also no representation on his behalf in spite of the matter having been posted for dismissal/disposal. It shows a non-chalant attitude to the matters before us on the part of the learned COUNSEL for the appellants. The appellants before us were the 1st and 2nd opposite parties in C.D. No. 146/1996 before the Chittoor District Forum and they question the order of that Forum dated 11.7.1997 allowing that C.D.C. The complainant in C.D.C. No. 146/1996 on the file of Chittoor District Forum is the 1st respondent before us. The 3rd opposite party in the C.D.C. is the 2nd respondent before us. COUNSEL for the 1st respondent/complainant is also not present. The Assistant Government Pleader represents the 2nd respondent.
THE Assistant Government Pleader has placed before us the decision of the National Commission in Himachal Weavers Private Limited v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation & Ors., III (1993) CPJ 267 (NC)=1993 (3) CPR 285 (NC) holding that subsidies to be granted to various parties pursuant to schemes evolved by Governments (in that case the Central Government) were not pursuant to services hired for consideration and therefore persons having grievances in respect of non-payment of such subsidies did not fall within the definition of the expression ''consumer'' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the Act'' for short). THE National Commission referred to the definition of ''consumer'' and of ''service'' respectively in Clauses (d) and (o) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act and held in that case as follows : "THE complainant Company has not hired any ''service'' of the Central Government for consideration for providing Central Subsidy to it. As far as Himachal Pradesh Government is concerned, it was only disbursing the subsidy as and when it received it from the Central Government. THErefore, in such circumstances, the complainant cannot be said to be a ''consumer'' of "service'' as defined under the Act."
THE Assistant Government Pleader submits-in our view very rightly-that this decision governs the facts of the present case. In the present case also the complainant applied for subsidy under the Failed Well Compensation Scheme (''F.W.C.S.'' for short) introduced by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O. Ms. No. 247, F and R.D. (R.D.V.) Dept. dated 4.6.1985. Under that Scheme 100% subsidy would be given for small and marginal farmers and 75% would be given in all other cases in respect of the amounts spent by the farmers for digging borewells which failed. The contention of the complainant was that the borewell dug by him failed and therefore he was entitled to subsidy under the F. W.C.S. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay 75% of the principal amount and total interest towards the loan account of the complainant towards the subsidy under the F.W.C.S. Questioning this order opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred this appeal. As no service for hire was involved under the Scheme for payment of subsidy, we have to hold that the District Forum erred in directing the 75% payment under the F.W.C.S. On the facts of the present case, applying the principle laid by the Hitnachal Weavers Private Limited v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation & Ors. (supra), we have to hold that the complainant is not a ''consumer'' and that therefore he cannot claim any relief under the Act. In the result, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.