DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE vs CHAUDHARY INDUSTRIES

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. "

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. 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.

None was appeared on behalf of the appellants at the time of arguments. Learned Counsel representing the respondent has been heard at length.

THE grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal on the basis of which order dated 16. 3. 2001 of the District Forum has been challenged are that as the unit of the complainant was found closed for a period of one year, as per report dated 21. 3. 1995 issued by Block Level Extension Officer (Industries), Samalkha which fact was duly confirmed as per report dated 6. 7. 1995 by the Functional Manager and Industrial Promotion Officer. Therefore, the subsidy amount of Rs. 79,102 had not been disbursed rightly to the complainant. In this case there is no dispute that the complainant was entitled to subsidy amount of Rs. 79,102 under the scheme and for that reason the opposite parties had initially issued the sanction letter noticed above and had also prepared the cheque for the said amount. The payment has been withheld primarily for the reasons that the unit of the complainant was not functioning for a period of one year after 19. 6. 1992. During the course of trial of the case, the complainant adduced evidence in order to refute the stand of the opposite parties that the unit was not functional as maintained by them. It may be appropriate to notice the discussion contained in para No. 8 of the order of the District Forum wherein the evidence adduced has been discussed and the same reads as under: "the complainant has placed his affidavit in support of his case along with some relevant documents. Ex. C1 is the letter vide which the subsidy amount of Rs. 79,102 has been granted to the complainant by the respondents. Ex. C2 is the letter written by the B. E. L. O. to the higher authorities regarding the closing of the unit in question. Ex. C3 is a bill of the complainant for dated 15. 5. 1995. Vide this bill, the complainant has sold his goods to M/s. Haryana Udyog Ex. C4 is again copy of bill dated 17. 5. 1995. Vide this bill the complainant has sold the goods to M/s. Bharat Industries. Ex. C5 and Ex. C6 are also copies of the bills vide which the complainant firm has sold his product to M/s. Bansal Duding of Rs. 24,433 and to some other firm. Ex. C7 is the copy of bill of M/s. Satish Trading Company. The complainant has purchased the pig iron from this company of Rs. 2,28,342. 67. This bill is of dated 15. 5. 1995. Thereafter, the Ex. C8 is the copy of the same day. Ex. C9 is from 30e. This form is for dated 15. 5. 1995. Ex. C10 is the copy of sanction notice. Vide this sanction note, the complainant has booked iron from M/s. Satish Trading Company, Calcutta to M/s. Chaudhary Industries Ex. C11 is the income tax declaration. Ex. C14 is also the copy of bill from M/s. Bihar Coak, Dhanbad. Vide this bill the complainant firm has purchased the H/coked of Rs. 24,830. This bill is dated 28. 4. 1995. These goods have been transported by the complainant company through Manohar Road Carrier. The copy of this GR has been cited as Ex. C15. Above all, the complainant has also placed his copy of ledger register herein he has recorded all his products. This register has been checked by the concerned B. L. E. O. and he has placed his signatures under date 16. 11. 1994. "

The above stated evidence on the face of record contradicts the report dated 6. 7. 1995 submitted by the Functional Manager and Industrial Promotion Officer who had confirmed the report of the B. L. E. O. dated 21. 3. 1995 that the unit was lying closed. Evidence adduced on record from the side of the complainant has amply proved that the unit was working during this period. The subsidy in question relates to the period from 20. 6. 1990 to 19. 6. 1992. The letter of Director of Industries bearing Memo No. VI RIS/156/47257-A dated 29. 1. 1981 relates to the incentives given under Rural Industries Scheme to sick and closed units. It is not the case of the opposite parties that unit of the complainant has been declared as sick unit and as such on that account as well there was no justification for the opposite parties to have withheld the payment of the incentives admissible to the complainant. In fact, the opposite parties had adopted unfair trade practice with the small units set up units in rural area, in denying the incentives subsidy of Rs. 79,102. Under the circumstances of the case, the District Forum was fully justified in accepting the complaint.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is consequently dismissed. Appeal dismissed.