DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE Vs. CHAUDHARY INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 16. 3. 2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant, following direction has been given to the appellants-opposite parties : "we hereby direct the respondents to issue subsidy amount of Rs. 79,102 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. This interest shall take place from the date when this subsidy was recommended i. e. , 17. 8. 1993 till the realization. The respondents are hereby further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 on account of deficient services along with Rs. 3,300 on account of litigation expenses of the present complaint. The respondents shall comply with this order, within a period of thirty days from the date of announcement of this order. "

(2.) TO set up the industries in the rural areas within the State of Haryana, the Industries Department Government of Haryana framed Rural Industries Scheme to give incentives to the small units. The Director of Industries, Haryana was vested with the powers to grant incentives on the basis of investment limit on plant and machinery. The scheme also provided for payment of interest, subsidy over and above 6% on loans secured from financial institutions for a period of two years to such industrial units. The complainant opened a unit iron factory at Village Pavti near Samalkha. The complainant had obtained a loan on 20. 6. 1990 and applied for the interest subsidy to the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 granted sanction of Rs. 79,102 as subsidy on account of interest under the scheme for the period 20. 6. 1990 to 19. 6. 1992. For seeking approval of the payment of the said amount, a letter dated 17. 8. 1993 was written to the Managing Director, Haryana S. S. Industries and Export Corporation, Chandigarh. After obtaining the sanction of cheque No. 033716 dated 22. 9. 1994 of Rs. 79,102 to be issued to the complainant was sent to the opposite party No. 1 which was to be delivered to the complainant through B. E. L. O. The said B. E. L. O. did not hand over the cheque in question to the complainant and in turn returned the same to the higher authorities with the recommendations to cancel the same. Forced by these circumstances the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay subsidy amount of Rs. 79,102 along with interest @ 24% per annum w. e. f. 17. 8. 1993 till the date of realisation along with litigation expenses.

(3.) THE complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In their joint written statement it was pleaded that complainant being not a consumer, the complaint as such was not maintainable. On merits it was stated that incentives under the scheme was available to the unit which was in running condition but not to the unit lying closed. At the same time it was stated that in the meeting held on 23. 3. 1993 recommendation for grant of subsidy amount of Rs. 79,102 to the complainant firm was made and thereafter the Managing Director, District Industries Centre, Panipat vide letter dated 17. 8. 1993 sanctioned the amount and had written to the Managing Director, Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. , Chandigarh for the issue of cheque. But in terms of the letter dated 19. 1. 1981 issued by the Director of Industries, Haryana, Chandigarh the industries set up under the scheme but lying closed were not to be given the incentives. Thereafter, the Block Level Extension Officer (Industries), Samalkha in his report dated 21. 3. 1995 informed the opposite parties that the unit of the complainant was lying closed for the last one year and thereafter confirmation of the report was also obtained from Functional Manager (KVI) and Industrial Promotion Officer who submitted his report dated 6. 7. 1995 in this regard. After the receipt of the said report the cheque of the subsidy pertaining to the firm of the complainant was sent back for cancellation on 12. 7. 1995. Thus, they justified the rejection of the claim of the complainant. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum accepted the complaint and issue the directions as per order dated 16. 3. 2001 noticed above. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed.