Presents:-

1. Sri P.Samantara,President.
2. Sri G.K.Rath, Member.

Dated, Bolangir the 16^th day of October 2015.

C.C.No.69 of 2014.

Satya PrakashMishra, age-64 years son of late HariharMishra.

Resident of Talpalipada (BolangirTown, P.O/P.S/Dist-Bolangir.

                                                                         ..                  ..          Complainant.

                   -Versus-

Anirudha Sai @ Anu Sai, son of Bijan BihariSai,resident of

Chimnibhati (Bolangir Town,) P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                          ..                 ..          Opp.Party.

Adv.for the complainant- Self.

Adv.for the O.P.            – M/S. Sairaj Sai & Associates.

                                                                                   Date of filing of the case-08.10.2014

                                                                                   Date of order.                 – 16.10.2015

JUDGMENT.

Sri P.Samantara,President.

                     The complainant in interest of a PHD pipe line connection contacted the O.P to ensue work and stated to have paid respectively Rs 4,000/- and Rs 1,100/- in two occasions. The O.P failed to in his assurance that the documents concerning the approval will be submitted and in completion same will be handed over, however it is surfaced, neither documentation ensured nor money is returned. Thus the case, praying for return of money, cost and compensation, as deemed fit. Relied on pleaders notice only.

2.                 In pursuant to notice, the O.P appeared on dt.24.12.2014 and latter take adjournment & did not file any version.

3.                Heard and perused the record.

4.                On observe, we find the notice is sufficient and thereof the O.P did not file any version on his defence, so we prefer to proceed on merit as per the record.

5.                The application of the complainant reveals the O.P is has received /paid money of Rs 4,000/- and Rs 1,100/- to ensure PHD pipe work at his residence, but no documentary evidence has been adduced in favour of same. The complaint is that assured work has been completed and documentation has not been handed with. In this context, the complainant has failed to produce the contractor license under the concerned PHD division and preliminary application and feasibility report at outset and road cutting receipt etc in genuineness of the work has approved, in absence of these documents the entire work ensured is illegal and thereof the documentation. Our same view also, get fortified on the admission by the applicant that “ in enquired about the connection from PHD office, one peon by named Markand told as per the official records no connection was given to the residence of the complainant and the O.P has not obtained permission for connection”, which amplifies the complainant has take an unauthorized connection, which is illegal under the eyes of law.

                           Thus the complainant fails in giving evidence, so the case is hereby dismissed.

ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015.

                                   (G.K.Rath)                                (P.Samantara)

                                   MEMBER.                                PRESIDENT.