State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Penki Krishnam Naidu Srikakulam Dist vs M/S National Horticulture ... on 11 February, 2014
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD. F.A.No.50 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.131 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM, VIZIANAGARAM Between: Penki Krishnam Naidu S/o.Appala Swamy Naidu Aged 45 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, resident of House No.3-111, Thana Street, Rajam, Srikakulam Dist., ..Appellant/complainant And M/s National Horticulture Board, Rep. By its Assistant Director Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, 202, 2nd floor, Santhinikethan Apartmets, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad-500 001. ..Respondent/Opp.party. Counsel for the Appellant Mr M.Hari Babu Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.V.K.Naidu QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN Order (As per Sri T.ASHOK KUMAR Honble MEMBER) *** This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order in C.C.No.131/2011 dated 23-8-2012 on the file of District Forum, Vizianagaram. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder:
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant, an agriculturist and cultivation is the source of his livelihood. He owned lands in Sy. numbers 229, 230 and 231 at Sathivada Village, Amiti Revenue village, Therlam Mandal in an extent of A.c.13.50 and also owns other lands. In pursuance of the opposite partys offer, he made an application for development of cultivation of exportable high value mango crop through production and post harvest management under letter of intent and paid necessary fee, submitted project report issued by the Global Horty services, Hyderabad in respect of the aforesaid complainants land, bank consent letter for loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Rajam branch along with pre-sanction report and submitted the documents to the opposite party. The opposite party took some objections as per letter dated 06-9-2010 and he complied the objections and thereafter the opposite party considered his application and sent a letter dated 20-11-2010 that the appropriate committee of the Board in its meeting dated 18-10-2010 considered the above proposal and approved the issuance of LOI and advised the complainant to intimate his availability at project site for further action and the complainant immediately intimated his willingness for his availability at the project site but there was no response from the opposite party and the opposite party sent a letter dated 07-1-2011 that there was no response from the complainant to which the complainant sent a detailed letter dated 12-1-2011. Thereafter the opposite partys officers visited the project site and expressed satisfaction of the project but surprisingly sent a letter dated 15-2-2011 stating that the complainant made necessary plantations without bank loan and thereby stated not eligible.
The complainant thereafter contacted the officer of the opposite party and apprised the true facts stating that the complainant started the project work with the bank loan amount only and the loaning bank i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad, Rajam Branch also addressed two letters dated 11-3-2011 and 10-5-2011 informing that the complainant started project work with the bank loan amount. After pre-sanction report of the bank and mortgage executed by the complainant in favour of the bank it was revealed that there was no plantation in the project site prior to sanction of bank loan and hence the two letters of the bank establish that the complainant followed the project work as per the opposite party procedure only and requested to consider his request for the subsidy claim. The complainant averred that he developed the project work only after release of initial loan granted by the Bank and also by investing his margin amount/promoters capital as mentioned in the project report at Rs.3,94,535/- and the bank released an amount of Rs.7.57 lakhs and that he levelled the project land by clearing bushes, shrubs and raising bunds and also dug four open wells, one bore well and raised mango plantation as per project work but the opposite party unilaterally intimated him that the project area available for implementation with the bank finance is less than Ac.10-00 and as such, he is not eligible for grant of LOI. The complainant, therefore, got issued a notice dated 24-5-2011 requesting to re-verify all the records, registered mortgage, banks pre inspection, report, Bankers letter and to take a just decision but the opposite party sticked to the earlier decision vide letter dated 15-2-2011 and subsequent letter dated 27-6-2011. The complainant averred that as per letter of the opposite party dated 20-11-2010, the LOI of the complainant was approved and he proceeded with the project as per the project report and procedure and therefore he was entitled for the subsidy claim from the opposite party to a tune of Rs.3,94,535/- and that by paying the application fee and brochure amount, he is a consumer and denying his claim for sanction of the subsidy is negligence in discharging its duties.
Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,94,535/- under letter of intent for the project of the complainant and pay another sum of Rs. 1 lakh for the mental agony and costs.
Opposite party filed reply resisting the complaint and contended that National Horticulture Board was set up by Government of India is an Autonomous Board set up to promote the integrated development of Horticulture and the board provides assistance by way of Back Ended subsidy under various schemes prescribed for the purpose to facilitate the completion of such projects and it is under the administrative control of the Ministry of Agriculture and having its headquarters at Gurgaon. As per the operational guidelines of the scheme and its general conditions, the financial assistance by way of credit linked Back Ended subsidy shall be available for projects covering area of above four hectares (above ten acres) in case of open cultivation and more than 1000 sq. mtrs. in case of protected cultivation and that the subsidy is a grant from the Central Government and any citizen cannot claim as a matter of right and the sanction and disbursement of the subsidy is strictly governed by the terms and conditions of the scheme. In terms of the said scheme, the concerned bank/financial institution is advised to furnish the details as per operational guidelines to the State officer of the opposite party immediately after release of full amount of term loan and completion of the project for conducting joint inspection and consideration of subsidy, whereas in the present case, no letter of intent was issued as the project of complainant was not found eligible for grant of LOI. The complainant submitted a proposal for grant of LOI for setting up mango cultivation in an area of Ac.13.50 but incomplete proposal was received by the opposite party on 11-8-2010 and the application 02-10-2010 was received with implementation schedule during December 2010 and January, 2011 which was processed and only conditionally approved by appropriate committee of the opposite party in its meeting held on 18-11-2010 for letter of intent subject to receipt of satisfactory pre-inspection report. The said decision was conveyed to the complainant vide letters dated 20-11-2010 and 7-1-2011 with an advice to intimate his availability at project site for conducting pre inspection and on receipt of response pre inspection was conducted on 19-2-2011 during which it was found that out of Ac.13.50 of plantation area proposed in LOI application, plantation in Ac.8.00 was already completed and the remaining area left out is Rs.Ac.5.50 and hence vide letter dated 15-2-2011 informed the complainant that the new area to be developed was less than Ac.10-00 and the proposer was not eligible for grant of LOI In response to the opposite partys letter, the financial bank of the complainant i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad vide letter dated 10-5-2011 informed that the complainants land is Ac.13.50 and his wifes land is Ac.6.50 adjacent to each other and the plantation was found completed in the land of the complainants wife and further that the complainants land of Ac.13.50 was vacant at the time of pre-inspection done by the bank on 07-7-2010 and plantation was done only after sanction of bank loan on 12-10-2010.
The opposite party averred that the above matter was placed before 40th State Committee in its meeting held on 24-6-2011 and the same was not accepted by the committee as the clarification given by the bank was found contradictory to the pre-inspection report of opposite party which was duly signed by the complainant. It was apparent that if the banks version was to be believed then why the complainant had shown the plantation land not related to the project in his application and accordingly opposite party vide letter dated 27-6-2011 again informed its same decision under intimation to the bank. The complainant mentioned in para 1 of his complaint that his ownership of land is Ac.13.50 situated in Sy.Nos.229,230 and 231 whereas the LOI application, affidavit and bank consent letter mention the proposed location of project at Sy.Nos.229, 231, 233, 234 and 337 but survey No.230 was nowhere mentioned and the total land of the complainant survey numbers 229, 231 and 244 as per bank appraisal comes to Ac.8.90 only as against Ac.13.50 claimed by bank and Survey Nos.334 and 337 applied in LOI are not apprised by bank and in view of the said facts, the project of the complainant was not found eligible.
The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and the opposite party since the subsidy from the opposite party under its Back Ended capital Investment scheme is a grant from the Government of India to the eligible projects and there is no cause of action and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party does not have a branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of Vizianagaram District and hence the Forum cannot entertain the complaint and survey No.230 was nowhere mentioned either in bank documents or LOI application of the complainant and related documents which proves that the land in Survey Number is being shown as part of project solely to avail subsidy and merely submitted an application for issuance of LOI, the complainant cannot claim sanction and release of subsidy as a matter of right and even issuance of LOI does not make him entitled for release of the subsidy till the terms and conditions of the scheme and LOI are fully complied and the complainant failed to qualify the eligibility criteria and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
Both sides filed affidavits reiterating their respective contentions. Exs.A1 to A17 and Ex.B1 were marked on their behalf. Having heard both sides, considering the material on record and written arguments of both sides, the District Forum vide impugned order dismissed the complaint.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum erred in holding that the complainant raised or intended to raise garden to export the yielding crop which is commercial purpose and that the complainant is not a consumer and also failed to see that the complainant is an unemployed agriculturist doing agriculture for his livelihood. The District Forum failed to consider the project report as well as letter of SBH which sanctioned the loan after inspection and the documents of the complainant. The District Forum ought to have seen that the opposite party admitted that the complainant had planted plants in January, 2010 after obtaining loan and after the application of financial support of the opposite party and the land as required is sufficient as per the alleged scheme terms and conditions and therefore the order is liable to set aside and prayed to allow the appeal.
The learned counsel for the respondent filed written arguments.
Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or on facts?
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant, an agriculturist, for his livelihood, made an application for development of cultivation of exportable high value mango crop in his land and submitted all the documents to the opposite party. The opposite party in its Board meeting dated 18-10-2010 considered the above proposal and approved the issuance of LOI and thereafter the opposite partys officers visited the project site and expressed satisfaction of the project but it is the case of the complainant that the opposite party surprisingly sent a letter dated 15-2-2011 stating that the complainant made necessary plantations without bank loan and thereby rejected his application as not eligible and also that the project area available for implementation with the bank finance is less than Ac.10-00.
It is the contention of the complainant that his banker i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad, Rajam Branch also addressed two letters dated 11-3-2011 and 10-5-2011 informing that the complainant started project work with the bank loan amount after pre-sanction report of the bank and mortgage executed by the complainant, it was revealed that there was no plantation in the project site prior to sanction of bank loan and hence the two letters of the bank establish that the complainant followed the project work as per the opposite party procedure only and requested to consider his request for the subsidy.
Whereas it is the contention of the opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and the opposite party since the subsidy from the opposite party under its Back Ended capital Investment scheme is a grant from the Government of India to the eligible projects and there is no cause of action and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
We observe from the record that the complainant stated that as an agriculturist for eking out his livelihood he got sanctioned the loan for development of cultivation of exportable high value mango crop in his land and got approved the LOI and also loan from State Bank of Hyderabad but he did not state that he is an unemployee. We observe from the record that cultivation of exportable high value mango crop is for commercial purpose and the complainant did not pay any consideration to the opposite party seeking service and even assuming that he paid application fee, it does not amount to consideration and therefore the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Be that as it may, the subsidy offered by the opposite party is a grant by way of credit linked Back Ended subsidy and it shall be available for projects covering area of above four hectares (above ten acres) in case of open cultivation and more than 1000 sq. mtrs. in case of protected cultivation and that the subsidy is a grant from the Central Government and any citizen cannot claim as a matter of right and the sanction and disbursement of the subsidy is strictly governed by the terms and conditions of the scheme and when it is the specific case of the opposite party that survey No.230 was nowhere mentioned either in bank documents i.e. Ex.A4 State Bank of Hyderabad Pre-sanction Inspection report mentions survey numbers except 230 i.e. 233-1, 234-2, 233-4. 233.6, 237.7, 233.2, 233-5, 237-6P, 233-3, 234.6, 231-3, 231-2, 231-4, 229.10, 233-77P, 237-6P and A8 or LOI application of the complainant and related documents, the complainant even in the appeal did not choose to produce any additional evidence to state that Survey No.230 belongs to him to refute the said contention of the opposite party and the project report of Global Horti services also mentions the Sy.No.230. In this context, we also rely on the judgement of the National Commission in Neelam Gupta vs Reliance Life Insurance and another reported in I (2011) CPJ, 241 held that material suppression of facts of the case would disentitle the person approaching Consumer forum from claiming any relief. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER.
MEMBER.
JM Dt.11-2-2014 .