Orissa

Jajapur

CC/15/2015

Bhima Samal - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.D.O Korei Block - Opp.Party(s)

S.Panda

29 May 2015

ORDER

                             IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:   1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Presiding Member,

                                                                         2.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                       Dated the 29th day of May,2015.

                                       C.C.Case No.15 of 2015

Bhima Samal S/O Chaitanya Samal

Vill. Kiapada, P.O. Andhari

Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                     …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.B.D.O,Korei Block, At/P.O.Korei,  Dist. Jajpur.

2. V.L.W, Andhari G.P,At.Andhari,P.O.Ragadi,Dist.Jajpur.

                                                                                                          …………………..Opp.Parties.

For the Complainant:                          Sri S.Panda,Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties No.1                    Self.

For the Opp.Parties No.2                     Sri Udaya nath Panda, .                                    

                                                                                                   Date of order:   29. 05. 2015.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY, PRESIDING  MEMBER .

                        The petitioner has filed the present  dispute  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

                        The fact relevant in the present dispute shortly as per complaint petition are that the petitioner is a B.P.L card holder. That the O.P no.1 issued a work order for I.A.Y house on dt.08.11.13 order letter no.3654,case record No.13/13-14 of Rs.75,000/- only.  The complainant has constructed his building up to roof level and he has performed the plan as planed by the State Govt. Odisha for I.A.Y house. That as per the guide line of I.A.Y house, the  complainant has received the 1^st installment of Rs.30,000/-  which has been deposited in  his Bank pass book. That the complainant though has completed up to roof level  but he has not received the 2^nd installment of Rs.35,000/- . As a result completion of the building is quite impossible. It is caused only due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the O.Ps. That the complainant has informed to the O.P-members regarding house progress but the O.P members have not settled the claim  of the complainant.. Lastly the complainant had put forth his grievance before the Collector of  grievance cell on dt.03.11.14 ,diary No.4385 and Sub-collector,jajpur  send it to the O.P no.1 but till date the 2^nd installment has  not given to the complainant.

                        Hence finding no alternative way the petitioner has  filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to release Rs.45,000/- balance amount of the “ Indira Abas”  and penalize Rs.20,000/- towards compensation.

                        After notices the O.P no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written version jointly along with documents  and have taken the following defence:

A work order of Rs.75,000/- has been issued by the B.D.O, Korei vide work order No.3654 /08.11.2013 to the present petitioner Bhima Samal for construction of an I.A.Y . In that work order it has been instructed to the present petitioner that for construction of the building under I.A.Y a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been released along with the work order as 1^st installment. The 2^nd installment of Rs.35,000/- shall be released in favour of the petitioner after  completion of the nimtal level. Similarly also the third and last installment of Rs.10,000/- shall be released in favour of the petitioner after completion of the roof.

                        That accordingly a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been released in favour of the petitioner through his bank account as 1^st installment and the petitioner after obtaining the work order and receiving the aforementioned amount through bank pass book will show the spot to the Executive Officer who will give lay out. before release of 2^nd installment .  In the present case the O.P no.2 (the executive Officer) visited the spot for enquiry and found that the present petitioner have constructed the building other than a plot to which he has shown to the  O.P. no.3. Further it has been detected by the O.P no.2 that the father of the petitioner who is living with a joint mess have obtained a building under I.A.Y scheme to which the petitioner has suppressed to the authority. Further as per the guide line of the Govt. the I.A.Y house should be of 20 s.meter but the petitioner has constructed the house within 11sq.meter and it is the extended house of his father’s building. No separate building has been constructed by the petitioner after obtaining the work order from the Govt. authority. The house to which the petitioner have shown to the Govt.. has been constructed much prior to the issuing of the present work order. More over the said house/ building has not been constructed to satisfy the guide lines for release of 2^nd installment . In order to obtain the 2^nd installment the petitioner have to complete the building up to nimtal level to which he has not been completed.

                        That along with the work order instruction was also given to the beneficiary to complete  the construction of the house/ building  within six months of receiving the

1^st installment  amount  but the present petitioner has not completed the building within six months which is  the statutory period.

                        In view of the above clarification of both the parties we have perused the record along with the documents filed from both the sides and inclined to dispose of the dispute as per our observations stated below:

1. It is settled principle of law that so far as availing of I.A.Y scheme is constructed the petitioner is not a consumer who will maintain the dispute in this Fora.
2. 2. In the written version it is stated by the O.P no.1 and 2 that :

1. The petitioner has not constructed the I.A.Y house in the identified plot rather extended the house in a different plot.
2. The father of the petitioner has availed a I.A.Y house who is living with the petitioner .
3. The petitioner without constructing the I.A.Y house only has extended house within 11 Sq.meter which violates the guide line of I.A.Y scheme.

                        After verification of the guide line of I.A.Y scheme we are also in the opinion that the pleas taken by O.P no.1 and 2 are fully supported by the guide line of I.A.Y scheme. Hence we are in the considered view that the petitioner has violated the term and condition of I.A.Y scheme for which the dispute is liable to be dismissed.

O R D E R

                        In the result the dispute is dismissed . No cost.                                 

      This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of May,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.                                                                                             

 

 

(Miss Smita Ray)

 Lady  Member.                                                               (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                          

                                                                                             Presiding Member.                                                                      

          .                                                                  Typed to my dictation & corrected by me

                                                                                   

                                                                                        (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)

                                                                                                 Presiding Member.