ORDER Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—Smt. R Jayalakshmi, the complainant was beneficiary of a self-employment scheme, promoted by the Central Silk Board (CSB), set up by the Government of India. She had sent her application for financial assistance to CSB and also deposited 10% of the cost of machinery. According to the terms of the scheme 30% of the cost of machinery would be financed by the CSB and the State Government, and 60% would be given as an interest free loan to the beneficiary. At the request of the complainant, CSB placed an order for supply and erection of machinery for production of silk which was installed on 23.8.98. Complainant alleged that sub-standard machineries were supplied. Alleging deficiency in service she has filed the complaint. 2. The District Forum agreeing with the contention of the CSB dismissed the complaint and relegated the complainant to civil court. Dissatisfied by the decision of the District Forum, the complainant had preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held that the subject matter can be heard by the Consumer Fora and also that provisions of arbitration in an agreement does not exclude the consideration by the Consumer Fora as Section 3 of the CPA is an additional remedy. State Commission further held that it is not in dispute that on a complaint made by the complainant a joint investigation was made and an agreement was reached between the manufacturer and the complainant to replace some of the equipments. This would show that machinery supplied were defective. The State Commission came to the conclusion that complainant is entitled to refund of sum of 10% deposited by her with the CSB. In asmuch as there has been deficiency in service in that defective machineries were supplied thereby making it impossible to carry on her self-employment, the State Commission directed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid as compensation by both the opposite parties i.e. CSB and the manufacturer Shri Balaji Enterprises to the complainant. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission CSB has filed this revision. 4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant had written to CSB as follows: “Further, I requested you to please arrange M/s Balaji Enterprises 48/D, 24th cross, Karesandra, K.R. Road, Banashankari II stage, Bangalore 560 070 supplier for supply of 6 basin Multi end Reeling Package.” 5. 4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant had written to CSB as follows: “Further, I requested you to please arrange M/s Balaji Enterprises 48/D, 24th cross, Karesandra, K.R. Road, Banashankari II stage, Bangalore 560 070 supplier for supply of 6 basin Multi end Reeling Package.” 5. He also brought to our notice a letter wherein the complainant has given a certificate that the manufacturers supplied and installed the machinery as per list given below: 1. Multiend Reeling Machine alongwith re-reeling machine 2. Permeation Chamber 3. Long skien book making machine 4. Denier scale 5. Epprouvate 6. Hot Air Oven 7. Cocoon sorting table 8. Multifuel economic oven 6. The CSB has released Rs. 2,52,600/- towards 60% of the balance payment for supply of machine on 27.8.98 which was received by the manufacturer. When the complainant mentioned about the defects in the machinery the CSB conducted a joint meeting involving representatives of the supplier, beneficiary and CSTRI in which inter alia it was decided as follows: “Subsequently the Board has asked the complainant to choose one among the 12 machinery manufacturers listed and approved by them for supply, erection and commissioning of machineries.” 7. As the dispute did not get resolved the Chairman CSB constituted a Committee and following decisions were taken: 1. Central Silk Board may take the acceptance of the machinery manufacturer either for replacement of the equipments as agreed upon or take back the package of equipments and repay the 90% payment made by CSB against the supply made to the beneficiary. 2. The beneficiary may be intimated to allow the supplier to take back the package of equipments supplied and he may choose the other CSTRI approved manufacturer/supplier for supply of the equipments. 3. If the beneficiary is not interested in setting up of the unit he may return the total package of equipments and take their 10% contribution immediately in co-ordination with CSTRI and the machine supplier. 4. Central Silk Board/CSTRI may write to the beneficiary and inform about the decision taken by the Committee in the scheduled meeting. 8.Instead of complying with this the beneficiary has filed a complaint alleging the defects in the machinery for which the CSB is not responsible. This issue can be resolved only by the manufacturer. He has also submitted that there was no deficiency by CSB. 9. 8.Instead of complying with this the beneficiary has filed a complaint alleging the defects in the machinery for which the CSB is not responsible. This issue can be resolved only by the manufacturer. He has also submitted that there was no deficiency by CSB. 9. Ld Advocate for the complainant before District Forum submitted that the complainant had selected one of the 12 firms listed by the CSB for purchase of machinery and hence Central Silk Board is responsible. If the list was not given by the CSB she would have bought machinery from a reputed firm and then there would not have been any difficulty. She has spent asmuch as Rs. 3,40,000/- which includes a sum of Rs. 500/- per day in terms of man-power loss. Findings: 10. It is clear that in this case a planned scheme of the Central Government was implemented by the Central Silk Board. The beneficiary was to pay only 10%. 30% would be given as subsidy by the Central Government/State Government through the Central Silk Board and 60% would be given as an interest free loan. 11. The complainant had an option to give back the machine and collect back money from the machinery manufacturer and who in turn would pay CSB 90% of the money collected and select any other approved manufacturer or supplier for supply of equipment which she has not done. If the beneficiary is not interested in setting up of the unit she may return total package of equipment and take back 10% contribution. 10% contribution has been given back to her but she has not given back the machinery. Hence, there is no deficiency in service by the Central Silk Board. 12. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed qua Central Silk Board only, leaving undisturbed rest of the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is disposed off accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision petition allowed accordingly. *******