Presents:-
1.Sri P.Samantara,President.
2.Smt. S.Rath, Member.
3.Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated,Bolangir the 29th day of June 2015.
C.C.No. 67 of 2012.
Yubaraj Dang, aged about 38 years son of late Dholia Dang,
Resident of village-Bangabahal P.O.Bakti,P.S.Loisingha,Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.The State represented through Collector,Bolangir.
The Executive Engineer,Ong Irrigation, at Lurkipali,
Bolangir Town, Bolangir.
2.The Executive Engineer,Ong Irrigation,Bolangir.
3.Asst.Engineer,Ong Irrigation Salebhata,At/P.O-Salebhata,
P.S.Loisingha, Dist- Bolangir.
4.Junior Engineer,Ong Irrigation, Salebhata.
At/P.O. Salebhata,P.S.Loisingha,Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the Complainant- Sri B.C.Pradhan & Associates.
Adv.for the O.P.No. 1 to 4 – Sri N.K.Tripathy, G.P.
Date of filing of the case – 12.11.2012
Date of order of the case - 29.06.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
The brief fact of the case is that complainant is a cultivator having landed property of Ac 2.50 dec.in plot No. 534,531,400 and 397 Khata No.28 of his share portion situated at Mouza Bangabahal,P.S.Loisingha in Bolangir District, as such he is a beneficiary within the command area of the O.Ps. The complainant was the user of water supply and paid the water rent or cess to the O.Ps. The complainant alleged that he raised paddy in his land during the crop season 2010 and 2011 but due to short fall of rain water his land needs water so as the area. But the canal water did reach his land as same is at tail end. Due to non reaching of the water the complainant sustained loss amounting to Rs 52,500/- .The matter has been intimated to the Pani Panchayat committee, Harabhanga on dt. 19.08.2012. Asst.Engineer, Salebhata, Irrigation Division. The complainant by finding no way filed this case claiming compensation and cost of litigation. Relied on area covered information paper for G.P.Bakal and common letters of intimation and affidavit.
2. The O.Ps appeared and filed the version admitting is within the jurisdiction of the forum and O.Ps are collecting water rent from the beneficiaries. The O.Ps denied the complainant is a cultivator. The O.Ps had no knowledge about the ownership of the land as advanced on stand and also no knowledge on the raised paddy crops in season 2010 and 2011 and the request to supply water to the field, intimation to Pani Panchayat Committee and damage of crop loss for non supply of water. In addition to this the O.Ps have further pleaded that, Ong Irrigation project is a diversion weir based irrigation project. It has no reservoir in harvest of rainwater. Due to the above reason the scarcity of water at the end of Khariff season is reflected in the entire ayacut area of this project. The farmers of tail end were getting water through Bangabahal sub minor canal. They have never made any complaint about non supply of water. So the allegation made by the complainant is not believable since his lands are situation at the upper hand canal water being supplied to the ayacut. It is not practicable on the part of irrigation deptt. to look into plot to plot. The case is false and fabricated one and pray the dismissal of the case for being devoid of merit.
3. We heard the learned advocate of the complainant as well as the O.Ps and perused the complaint petition and written version of the O.Ps.
4. It is admitted by the O.Ps, the complainant is a beneficiary under the Pani Panchayat scheme and paying water tax. So prima-facie the complainant is a consumer within the jurisdiction of this Forum and on perusal of records placed by the complainant, we assume, petitioner is a cultivator and access to only Ac 2.50 of land under his share in cultivation. The other documents is common letter dt.23.09.2011 and dt.29.11.2011 speaks the communication has made in intimating the agricultural status requiring water. We in intimation found nothing ensured in alleviation of same, problem.
5. Further it is come across, the crop loss survey has been made and report speaks of loss in non specific quantum sustained in the year 2011. So in our opinion, the complainant made cultivation and sustained crop loss. And it is admitted water supply is not possible for the reasons not technically elaborated by the O.Ps in giving substantive document in proof.
6. Again we find there is no reliable and substantive document available to admit the loss and to arrive in quantification .So we assume at least the purchase cost of seeds (paddy) is to ascertain as Rs 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) during the occasioned period for the said cultivation, same should be paid.
7. In view of the above noted observation, we find the O.Ps are committed negligence in non rendering service to the rent paid. Consumer at its requirement & failed miserably to look into the matter as the manner of performance which is required to be maintained is not taken into performance. So the fault.
Hence ordered:-
ORDER.
The O.Ps are hereby directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards the loss, harassment and mental agony sustained, within 30 days of this order failing which interest @ 9% per annum will accrue on the same from the date of application till realization.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2015.
I agree. I agree.
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.