Orissa

Nuapada

CC/24/2013

Umasankar Dhakad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ananga Kumar Sahu - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.PATRA

22 Oct 2014

ORDER

J U D G M E N T.

Fact of the case :- The complainant is a farmer and the O.P. No. 1 is the contractor dealing with digging of deep Bore well in the locality.The O.P. No. 2 is agent of O.P. No. 1, the O.P. No. 1 and 2 collected Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand)only as advance for digging of Deep Bore-well at village Katamal from the complainant and other seven persons.  In the month of April 2012, but till today he has not dig any bore-well and cheated the complainant.  The complainant files a case in the Court, P.C.L.A. Nuapada.  The Hon’ble Court has decided this case and give his finding refer to their local police station for investigation and lodge a case against the O.Ps. The I.I.C. Sinapali is directed to investigate in to the matter and take necessary action if the allegations is found to be true.

The complainant relied the following documents:-

i.Annexure -1 is the copy of order passed by the P.C.L.A,Nuapada  in which it is mentioned that it is a cognigible offence under the Indian Penal Code.

ii.Annexure-2 is the xerox copy Voter Id

iii. Annexure-3 is the xerox copy of land revenue receipt.

iv.Annexure-4 is the xerox copy of Patta.

     The O.P. has filed V.NAMA and not appeared before the Forum at the time of hearing and argument even not filed any version of this case, though he has collected Rs.7,000/- from the complainant.

 

              I S S U E S.

1. Whether the O.P has given any receipt about the advance payment for digging of deep-bore well or not  ?
2. Whethe the complainant is a consumer or not  ?

 

1. Whether the O.Ps obey the order of Hon’ble P.C.L.A.Nuapada or not  ?

Issue No. 1 :-

     The complainant is has stated in his complaint petition about the collection of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only as advance for digging of Deep Bore-well at his agricultural land by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 but does not files any relevant document like, money receipt, forms bill etc. except the affidavit.

 

2)  The complainant has not produced any money receipt and voucher or advance slip relating to the advance payment of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only, so he is not a consumer according to C.P. Act.

 

1. The complainant filed a case before the Hon,blel P.C.L.A., Nuapada.  The Court has decided the case and disposed up accordingly directing the Sinapali Police Station for investigation and take necessary  steps or action if the allegations is found to be true.

 

     The complainant has not stated about the further action of the local police station about the matter towards the O.Ps and execution of order of the P.C.L.A., Nuapada.

              O R D E R.

The Hon’ble Forum has going through the records of the complainant and come to the conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence this case is dismissed accordingly.

 

  Judgment pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 22^nd day of October 2014.