Orissa

Jajapur

CC/39/2018

Sarat Kumar Rout. - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.D.O,Dasarathpur. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Dec 2020

ORDER

      IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, President I/C

                                                                            2.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.   

                                              Dated the 30th day of December,2020.

                                                      C.C.Case No.39 of 2018

Sarat kumar Rout     

At. Andola Basudevpur  , P.O. Sridharpur  

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

                   (Versus)

 

1.B.D.O,Dasarathpur, At/P.O. Dasarathpur, Dist.jajpur

2. B.M,Bank of India, Chitalo Branch,At/P.O. Chitalo, Dt.Jajpur

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                           Self.            

For the Opp.Parties :No :2                   Sri J.Panigrahi, Advocate .

For the Opp.Parties No.1                     None

 

                                                                                                       Date of order:  30.12.2020.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY,  PRESIDENT I/C   .

The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service against the o.ps.

            The fact as stated by the complainant shortly  is that the petitioner reside at Andola Basudevpur under jajpur Dist  .In the financial year 2016-17 the petitioner selected under the PMAY yogna for construction of residential house in his own residential land .  It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner also availed work order no.38 dt.24.12.16 wherein mention that the 1srt installment release  Rs.20,000/ , 2^nd installment release Rs.35,000/- ,3^rd installment release Rs.45,000/- and   4^th installment release  of Rs 30,000/- .The petitioner also submitted detail documents including a copy of bank pass book showing accounts no. before O.P.no.1 for transfer of the installment amount  time to time for construction  of residential house under the above scheme. But the 1^st installment of Rs 20,000/-  did not come to the account of the petitioner.  According to the petitioner time to time visited the O.Ps office but the authority   of the o.p did not taking any step against  the request of the petitioner for payment of the 1^st installment.  It is pertinent  to mention here  that the petitioner also constructed the building for taking hand loan from others . Accordingly   finding no other alternative way the petitioner  knocked the door of this commission with the prayer to direct the O.P   to pay the 1^st installment of Rs.20,000/- along with Rs.30,000/-  for compensation for  mental agony and harassment .

            The notice of the present dispute duly served on the  O.Ps  .The O.P.no .2 appeared through their learned advocate  subsequently filed the written version .  The  O.P.no.1 neither appeared nor filed the written version to  contest the dispute . Hence the O.P.no. 1 has set exparte vide order dt.10. 07. 18. . The O.P.no.2 has taken  the stand in the written version  that as per  allegation of the petitioner the BDO ,Dasarathpur (o.pno1)  issued work order for construction  of his house under PMRY scheme after receiving the work order he constructed his house .The  O.P.no.1 has not deposited the funds of Rs.20,000/- in his bank account but the O.P.no.1 has deposited  the amount in the bank account in other  beneficiary .Thereafter the petitioner told  to  O.P.no.1  about the matter but till date he has not deposited the said amount in his bank account .

            That there is no relation between O.P.no.1 and 2  . As per law each has separate management in separate work .The O.P.no..2 has no role in the matter. Hence the case is not maintainable against o.p.no.2.

            That the above noted case  is liable to be dismissed with cost due to  mis- joinder and non joinder of the party . because the petitioner has not made party to Branch Manager State Bank of

India secretariat  Branch  BBSR and Moharastra  (Mumbai)  ,because he has transferred  the account of the beneficiary under the PMRY scheme .The B.M, State Bank of India ,Secretariat  Branch  have  not transferred the amount of Rs 20,000/- to the actual account of the petitioner .

            As per letter the B.D.O ,Dasarthpur dt.19.06.17 vide letter no.2387 it was come to knowledge  of O.P.no. 2 that the  Bank of India  Chitalo branch  ,the B.M of S.B.I ,Secretariate branch ,Bhubaneswar  transferred the funds amounting to Rs. 35,00,000/ to SB A/C  no.558910110001149 of Sarat ku.Routray S/O Nanda kishore  Routray of Vill. Andola under Akarpada G.P .  As per the request letter of  O.P.no.1,  the  O.P.no.2 held on the A/O  No. 55890110001140  and reversed  the same amount to the A/C of the above named Sarat ku.Raouray .The B.D.O, Dasarathpur has not sent any letter regarding the 1^st installment  of  Rs.20,000/-  of the petitioner. So  the O.P.no.2 has no knowledge about the said amount of  Rs.20,000/- of the petitioner .  Hence ,  the claim of the petitioner is totally false,  baseless, illegal , fabricated and imagination.

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the side of the petitioner   along with the learned advocate of O.P.no.2 .

 After perusal of the entire record  and documents in detail  it is observed that the petitioner has availed the work order from O.P.no.1 on dt.26.12.16 and as per documents  ledger copy  of bank account  filed from the side of O.p.no..2 ,the petitioner received the  installment amount except Rs. 20,000/- . On the other hand the petitioner claimed that he has already deposited the photo copy of saving bank account and other document before O.P.no.1 but the O.P.no1 neither appeared nor taking any step to contest the dispute. Accordingly there is no other option before this commission without accepting the uncontroverted  statement mentioned  in the complaint petition   as per observation of Hon’ble of National commission stated below :

1.2013(1) –CPR-507-N.C

Wherein it is held that :-

            “The written version is not filed after several opportunity , It is presumed that there is no defence on merit  .

             2003( CLT) –vol-96—315 (  C.D case no 37/02) 

“In absence of written version the commission is bound to accept the     uncontroverted  statement of the complaint petition . “

Hence this order

            The dispute is allowed against O.P.no.1 as exparte   and dismissed against O.P.no.2.The O.P.no.1 is directed to pay the 1st installment of Rs.20,000/-  and compensation of amount of Rs10,000/- ( ten thousand )  within  one month after receipt of this order . The above awarded amount  shall recover from the pocket of the concerned authority who is liable for committed such mistake as per observation of  Hon’ble Supreme  court reported in 1994(1)- CLT-1-SC                    failing which the petitioner can take steps as per law.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th  day of  December,2020. under my hand and seal of the commission ..