Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

          Complainant Chaitram Sahu has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act, 2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not installing a solar pump set in his agricultural land and praying therein for direction to the Opposition Parties to provide a solar pump in his agricultural land and a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency in service, mental agony and financial loss.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant applied    for solar pump to be installed in his deep bore well and paid a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- with OP No. 1 for installation of a solar pump as per Government scheme. Even though the solar pump was sanctioned in his favour, the pump set has not been installed in his bore-well for which he suffered loss due to non-installation of the solar pump in the bore well. Therefore, he filed this case before this Commission for direction to the Opposition Parties to install a pump in his bore well and to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for causing  financial hardship, mental agony and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposition Parties.

2.           After receipt of notice, the OP No. 1 appeared and he filed written statement. Other OPs did not appear in spite of notice served on them. The OP No. 1 in his written statement stated that the complainant had applied for a deep bore well in additional basis, not in a cluster. It was not possible to add the complainant in the cluster as the other beneficiaries did not agree to add him in the group. So, it has become necessary to apply for solar system on the part of the complainant and accordingly, he applied for solar system on 27.01.2021 and his application along with the applications of other farmers were sent to OP No. 2 vide L. No. 843 dt. 24.03.2021. Subsequently, the proposals are sent to the OP No. 3 by OP No. 2 vide his letter No. 3556/- dt. 31.05.2021. After consideration of the applications, the OP No. 3  sanctioned the proposal and placed orders to OP No. 4 for supply, installation, commissioning and maintenance of standalone solar photovoltaic water pumping system vide his letter No. 268 dt. 02.02.2022. As the pump was not installed in the bore well of the complainant, he had intimated the OP No. 3 for non-installation of the pump in the bore-well of the complainant vide L. No. 1223 dt. 01.06.2023. Subsequently vide L. No. 2373 dt. 22.11.2022 and letter No. 632 dt. 13.04.2023. The OP No. 3 intimated OP No. 1 through E-Mail on 17.04.2023 that the pumping system has been installed in the field of a different farmer having similar name in the same village. After realizing their mistake, the pump was brought out but the complainant refused to accept and installation of old and used pump and they are arranging to install a new pump by one week. Therefore, no deficiency of service lies on his part and the complaint petition be dismissed as the petitioner is not a consumer but a beneficiary of a Government scheme.

3.           The first and foremost question relating to this case is whether the petitioner is a consumer or not? It is pleaded in the complaint petition that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- towards part payment of the pump on 27.03.2021. The OP No. 1 in his written statement has nowhere denied that the complainant has not deposited this amount with him towards partial cost of the solar pump. Since the petitioner had paid a part of the cost, he enjoys the status of a consumer.  Furthermore, it is admitted by OP No. 1 that the complainant is a beneficiary in plethora of cases. The National Commission has ruled that the beneficiary enjoys the status of a consumer. As the complainant is a beneficiary, and he enjoys the status of a consumer. So, the plea of the Opposite Party stands rejected.

4.           Whether the Opposite Parties have caused deficiencies of service to the complainant or not? In Para 5 of the written statement, OP No. 1 has specifically pleaded that OP No. 3 has been intimated by him regarding non-installation of solar pump in the field of the complainant vide his letter No. 1223 dt. 01.06.2022 followed by reminders on 22.11.2022 and 13.04.2023. It is clear from his pleadings that the OP No. 3 sat over the matter for a period of 10 months without initiating any action and it is only on 17.04.2023. so, it is very much clear that the OP No. 3 and 4 have acted in a very careless and negligent manner and sat over the matter for a period of 10 months and in the meantime, another 6 months is also going to lapse but the solar pump has not been installed in the deep bore-well of the complainant which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 3 and 4.

5.           OP No.1 in his written statement has stated that OP No. 3 on 17.04.2023 intimated him that the solar pump was installed in the field of another farmer of the same village having similar name. There is nothing on record to show the pump was installed somewhere else. Before installation of the pump, the OP No. 3 and 4 must have verified the name of the beneficiary, his father’s name, the plot number in which it is to be installed. This plea of OP No. 3 appears to be very silly and also exposes their deficiency in service in their supervision activity and also lack of coordination with the line departments i.e. OP No. 1. Even after knowing about their fault, the OP No. 3 and 4 have failed to install the pump to the deep bore-well of the complainant over a period of around 15 months which amounts to deficiency in service.

6.           Because of the whimsical and careless conduct of OP No. 3 and 4, the complainant has suffered a loss and he lost 4 Kharif seasons in producing the crop properly which laid to his financial loss ultimately leading to harassment.

7.           As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it is crystal clear that the OP No. 3 and 4 are deficient in rendering service and jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant and therefore, liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss and harassment sustained by him hence the order.

O R D E R

                             The complaint petition is allowed ex-parte against OP No. 3 and 4 and dismissed against OP No. 1 on contest and ex-parte against OP No. 2. The OP No. 3 and 4 are made jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service  and harassment to the complainant. The OP No. 3 and 4 are directed to install the solar pump in the deep bore-well and commission it within 30 days from the date of the receipt of order. The OP No. 3 and 4 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) each as compensation to the complainant for the loss and harassment sustained by him arising out of the deficiency in service  caused by them. The OP No. 3 and 4 are further directed to pay a sum of  Rs. 10, 000/- (Ten Thousand) each to the complainant towards  cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order till it is paid to the complainant.