MR. PRABODHA KUMAR DASH, PRESIDENT:-             

                    This C.C.Case No. 25/2021 pending since the year 2021. This case is taken up today for order on priority basis. Heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner & Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation, Kendrapara appeared in person & also Ld. Counsel appeared for the Cuttack Central Co-Operative Bank, Kendrapara.

Brief Fact:-

                     Petitioner is a contractor assigned project work under Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division, Kendrapara. One is Kalagarh SRF and another is Jadupur SRF by the Op, and a security deposited by the Petitioner Rs. 51,988/- with TDR Rs. 11,000/- and another security Rs. 54,573/- with TDR Rs. 11,000/-. The final bill after completion of work was already paid to the petitioner. The grievances of the petitioner is that the Op did not refund the above security and TDR for which a Advocate Notice was sent, on reply the Op intimated that the work under taken by the Petitioner is defective therefore the security with TDR was not released. A complaint was made by the President of said Lift Irrigation point, complainant applied under R.T.I. Act about the complaint against the petitioner are false, manufactured by the authority and the same without seal and signature which has no basis but the purpose only to victimize the petitioner. The Petitioner not received any letter regarding defective work and prayed for direction to the Op to refund the same amount in respect of two works for Rs. 1,06,561/- as security & Rs. 22,000/- as TDR amount with appropriate interest and additional amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards harassment, mental agony.

1. Being noticed by this Commission the Op appeared in person & filed relevant documents with written version & not uttered a single word relating to the jurisdiction of this Commission & question of admissibility, but admitted without any objection, to the jurisdiction of the DCDRC.
2. Throughout the proceeding the Op contended that they sent several notices to the petitioner vide letter No. 66 on dt. 22.06.28, letter No. 96, dt. 29.11.18 where the Op categorically stated that some defect in the work not rectified by the Petitioner therefore they held up the security and TDR of the petitioner out of the final bill amount. Further contended by the Op that petitioner not deposited any security amount but @5% deducted from the final bill paid to him. But Petitioner only deposited TDR amount Rs. 22,000/- . Responding to the order passed on dt. 01.06.22 as prayed for by the Petitioner on affidavit that the Op furnished false and fabricated document where the Op stated that they paid the amount to the Petitioner through cheque. This commission directed the Op to answer to the Petitioner’s grievances & submit relevant documents accordingly the Op appeared and filed written version and necessary documents in respect of payment of cheque amount of Rs. 86,100/- given to the Petitioner drawn on Axis bank and the same given to some other person other than the petitioner who fabricated all the documents of petitioner successfully opened an A/C in Cuttack Central Co-Operative Bank, Kendrapara & presented the said cheque, misappropriated the same dishonestly on perusal of signature of petitioner and the bank A/C in Cuttack Central Co-Operative Bank, Kendrapara are different. After perusal of the encashed cheque in question on order produced by the Cuttack Central Co-Operative Bank Kendrapara in this Commission through its Advocate. After careful scrutining we found the same cheque issued by the Op given to some other person other than the petitioner. As per Sec-3 of Evidence Act “proved” fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matter before it the Court believes to exist or consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstance of particular case to act upon the supposition that it exists. So, unless the grievances disprove by the Op by adducing appropriate evidence the facts are said to be proved.

                           In our opinion, the Op with nexus with some other person misappropriated the said amount and the petitioner never received such amount. However, the Petitioner prejudiced by the Op for not receiving his security money and TDR amount after completion of Project work. The Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties under a contractual agreement where the Op is a Govt. authority and the petitioner is a contractor. The same issue can be well decided under a writ jurisdiction.

                                          O R D E R

                     Taking into all the facts & circumstances involved in this case, we are of the view that the present C.C.Case is not maintainable and the Petitioner is not a “consumer” within the perview of C.P.Act,2019 and though the Op has not challenged the jurisdiction of this Commission, but the case in hand is devoid of any merit & hereby dismissed on contest. No order as to cost & the complaint case is accordingly disposed off. However the Petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances.

                      Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.           

       Pronounced in the open Court, on this the 28th day of September,2022.             

                              I, agree.

                                Sd/-                                       Sd/

                           MEMBER                             PRESIDENT