Date of filing:-19/04/2016.
Date of order:-27/08/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 44 of 2018.
Suresh Kumar Agrawal S/o Biswanath Agrawal, aged about 48(forty eight) years, C/o- Atul Store, Ambapali, P.o/P.s/Dist.-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant .
- V e r s u s -
Executive Officer, Bargarh Municipality, At/Po/Ps/Dist.Bargarh.
Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Odisha, At/Po. Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khorda. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri J.Sahu, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.27/08/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case ;-
In pursuance to the provision U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the Complainant has preferred to file the case pertaining to the unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service on the part of the Opposite Parties as envisaged hereunder.
The Complainant being unemployed educated person applied for a space in the Municipality area of the Opposite Parties to start with a business for his self employment and with the instruction of the Opposite Party No.1(one) complied with the procedure of the Municipality Act for a space of 10' X 15' in the Ambapali area and also on his direction he deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only in lieu of the same area, with the Dealing Assistant and the said Dealing Assistant received the same but on being asked for a receipt against his deposited amount the dealing assistant told him to wait for some days as by then the Money Receipt was not available and was not regularized, on simple good faith the Complainant went away, but to his ill-luck the same Dealing Assistant transferred to some other place so he could not get the same receipt to which he complained before the authority of the Opposite Party No.1(one) but to no effect.
In furtherance to his case after some time the Opposite Party No.1(one) sent an official letter to the Complainant vide Letter No.1682/Dt.10.07.2006 directing him to occupy a space of an area of 10' X 15' in the said area and pay an amount of Rs. 250/-(Rupees two hundred fifty)only per month thereafter on Dt.24.04.2006 was served with a notice by the Opposite Party No.1(one), stating therein that he was allowed to put a Wooden Cabin thereon but as he has constructed a pucca structure over the same hence was directed to demolish the same or else would be demolished by them and cost of the said demolition would be paid by the Complainant, and as such the Complainant went to the office of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and asked them to demarcate the space whereon he has been alleged to have constructed the pucca structure but they avoided him repeatedly, ultimately being helpless asked for the same information through the R.T.I Act but the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not comply with same resulting to which he preferred an Appeal before the A.D.M., Bargarh vide Appeal No.31 of 2013 but the A.D.M., Bargarh directed him to file the same before the Executive Officer, Bargarh Municipality, so being aggrieved with the same order of the A.D.M. he preferred a second Appeal before the Odisha Information Commissioner, Bhubaneswar vide No.1223/2014 and on being noticed therefrom the P.I.O., Bargarh Municipality appeared and filed an affidavit-undertaking before the said Appellate Authority to provide him with the same information within seven days but till yet has not given any such information, consequently the Complainant apprised the same before the said Commissioner but in the process, his case is that he has already sustained heavy loss both physically mentally and also monetarily, which in his view is that the Opposite Party has committed deficiencies in rendering service coupled with commitment of unfair trade practice for not being allotted with a space as aforesaid in spite of his payment of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only. In support of his such case has relied on the following documents:-
License issued by E.O., Bargarh Municipality vide No.1682 Dt.10.07.2006.
Cancellation Order No.1824 Dt.24.07.2006.
Copy applied under R.T.I. Dt.24.08.2006.
Appeal before A.D.M., Bargarh under R.T.I.(No.1805) Dt.13.12.2006.
Appeal before Odisha Information Commission 1223/2014. Vide order Dt.13.07.2016.
Letter of the Complainant to E.O., Bargarh Dt.09.06.2016.
Pleader notice with Money Receipt Dt.29.12.2016.
Perused the complaint and it’s supporting documents and on hearing the learned Counsel for the Complainant prima facie it seemed to be a genuine one hence admitted and served Notice on the Complainant, but surprisingly the Opposite Party did not appear even if the same was personally received by their Officials, even then the case was adjourned for third time awaiting their appearance but none of them turned of hence ultimately on Dt. 08.08.2018 they were set ex-parte and consequently the Forum heard the case as such on Dt.20.08.2018.
Having gone through the entire materials available in the record and the oral submission of the concerned learned Advocate for the Complainant and keeping the arrogance of the Opposite Party No.1(one) specifically in non–appearing before the Forum even though he was served with the Notice personally. We felt it genuine to take up the matter on merit on the following issue.
Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Party and that Opposite Party No.1(one) is deficient in rendering service to him ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim as has prayed for ?
Firstly while dealing with the question as to whether the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties, in this regard it has been alleged by the Complainant that on the instruction of the Opposite Party No.1(one) he has paid Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand five hundred)only to the dealing assistant but as per his version he was not issued with a money receipt against his such deposit but due to the absence of the Opposite Parties the question from his behalf remains unanswered but from the conduct and the silence on the petition of the Complainant before the R.T.I. and the Appellate Authorities in as much as the affidavit–undertaking submitted by him before the Odisha Information Commissioner, Bhubaneswar made us derive an inference that the same is a fact that the payment has been made by him is within the knowledge of the Opposite Parties from where it can be safely presumed that he has paid the same as such is a bonafied consumer of him.
Secondly while dealing with the question as to whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant, having gone through the entire materials available in the record it came to our notice that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has issued license to the Complainant on Dt.10.07.2006 to start with a business in an area of 10' X 15' in a Wooden Cabin but has not specifically mentioned the plot number and holding number over which he was to install the said cabin. Further more subsequently there after has been served with a notice to demolish the pucca structure standing thereon or else would be demolished by them and the cost would be born by the Complainant, but it has been observed that on the query of the Complainant to demarcate the land and show him whereon he has been alleged to have constructed the pucca structure, but even if he has persuaded them for the same repeatedly but they have slept over the matter, for which of their such action have made him compelled to knock the door of the R.T.I and other Appellate Authorities and even being directed by the Apex body of the concerned Appellate Authority i.e. the Odisha Information Commissioner of the concerned Department the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not comply with his direction, which in other words could be said to be arrogant and also can be concluded as unfair trade practice on his part and as has received an amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only but has not complied with it’s duty to allot him with the Land in question, and instead of that has played foul play to demoralize and harass him mentally, physically and financially by serving him with unwarranted notice to demolish the non-existing structure, which in our view is nothing but unfair trade practice coupled with deficiencies in rendering service to him, hence our view is expressed in affirmative in favor of the Complainant.
Thirdly with regard to the Issue No.3(three), as we have already discussed the case in details and has already expressed our opinion in favor of the Complainant, therefore now it is obvious upon us to express our view in favor of the Complainant, but since the role or the conduct in any manner is pleaded in the complaint against the Opposite Party No.2(two) by the Complainant, so we are of the view to express our view to exonerate from claim against him. Hence order follows:-
O R D E R
Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only with interest @ 12% (twelve percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case to the Complainant and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only as compensation in lieu of the mental, financial harassment undergone by him and towards litigation expenses within thirty days from the receive of this Order in default of which the entire amount would carry an interest @ 18 % (eighteen percent) per annum till the actual realization of the same.
Accordingly the case is disposed off and the in the result the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and the same being pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e. on Dt.27.08.2018.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
