The present complaint has been filed by the complainant praying compensation of Rs.85,000/-(Rupees eighty five thousand) from O.P. Briefly, fact of the case is that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been sanctioned by the B.D.O Harabhanga for construction of C.C. Road at village Karanjakata of Harijan sahi under Gopabandhu Gramin yojana for the financial year 2015-2016.Accordingly work order is issued in favour of J.E for aforesaid construction work. The complainant executed and completed the work at the instance of the J.E. in good faith from his own pocket. It is alleged that intentionally and deliberately the O.P Govinda Chandra Sahu, a Co- villager put obstacles in the completion of the road work by lodging complaint after complaint before different authorities for which the complainant has suffered financially, physically and mentally to the tune for Rs.5000/-.All the documents (Xerox coy) including letter no.377/Dev/dt.05.02.2018 of B.D.O Harbhanga, filed by the complainant evident to the effect that the said work was delayed owing to objection raised by O.P.It is also admitted that finally the complainant had received Rs.1,40,000/- by cheque and cash of Rs.31,000/- for completion for the work only grievance of complaint against present O.P. is that owing to false objection of O.P, payment was delayed for about 1 year 7 months causing loss to him to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and also sought for Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.
On the otherhand, O.P. is a co-villager and he has neither appeared nor file any written objection despite notice. This is a case of the year 2018.Parties are absent on call in all dates as evident from the order sheet. It is also seen that the complainant himself also absent in all dates nor has filed any evidence, original documents etc, this is might be due to the fact that he does not want to proceed in this case anymore.
However, the case is decided on merit instead of dismissing it for non-prosecution.
After careful consideration of pleading of the complainant and documents as available in the case record, we are of the view that, the Complainant is not a Consumer and present O.P. is not a Service provider and there is no defeicnery in service as defined under C.P.Act 1986.It is also observed if the alleged allegations of the complainant is taken to be true still the Commission lacks jurisdiction to grant the reliefs as sought for by the complainant. Therefore, the case is not maintainable hence dismissed against O.P without cost.
Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of this Commission, this the 30th day of September, 2022.Free copy be supplied to parties, if applied for.
