Narayan Ch. Dehury, aged about 63 years, S/O-Lt. Pranabandhu Dehury filed a consumer case on 10 Nov 2016 against Junior Engineer, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. in the Debagarh Consumer Court. The case no is CC/20/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 11 Nov 2016.
IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.
Shri P.Ch. Mahapatra, Member & Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member
Narayan Ch. Dehury,
Aged about 63 Years,
S/O – Late Pranabandhu Dehury,
R/O – Vill – Bhejikudar,
PO – Nuandihi, PS - Kundheigola,
Dist/-Deogarh. …. Complainant.
Versus
Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd,
At/PO – Deogarh, Dist. – Deogarh
At/PO – Bhubaneswar,
Dist – Khordha. …. Opp.Parties.
C.D.Case No.20/2016.
DATE OF HEARING; 19.10.2016, DATE OF ORDER: 10.11.2016.
For the Complainant : Nemo
For the Opp.Party : Shri Pravash Cha. Mishra, Advocate.
SHRI PRATAP CHANDRA MAHAPATRA, MEMBER : - The genus of the case germane in the fact that the Complainant, a permanent resident of Bhejikudar, Post - Nuandihi under Kundheigola Police Station in the district of Deogarh with the intention to improvise cultivation thereby generating more income opted to install a Deep Bore Well in his lands and accordingly contacted the Ops who are the sanctioning authorities for the purpose. Since Complainant was found satisfying all prescribed criteria of the Scheme was selected to be sanctioned with a project and was directed to deposit Rs.19,000/- in the office of the OP1. On receipt of the said amount though the Ops dug a Deep Bore Well in the land of the complainant but did not install Pipe and electricity till date of filing the instant complaint violating the terms and conditions and assurances made to the fact that the Bore Well would be made operational within a month of digging. Although a year elapsed the project was not made operational, even the Pipe line not layed or the Motor not installed despite of several approaches and requests causing pecuniary loss and mental agony and harassment. Hence the complaint.
2. In response, OPs defended the allegations having admitted averments in Para-1, 2,3,4 and 5 and denied the contents of Paras – 6,7,8,9,10 & 11 made in the complaint petition that OPs are simply the Executor of execution of Deep Bore Well for agriculture purposes and the Scheme is laid down by the Government of Odisha.
Further,contended that the complainant is a beneficiary in the said project by sharing Rs.20,000/- while the rest Rs.3,44,000/- is being borne by the State Government. Complainant would have enjoyed the benefit out of the project if it would have become feasible subjected to geographical features,which in the instant case did not support for discharge of water.
Also it has been challenged by the OPs that the petition filed by the Complainant is not admissible and maintainable since complainant is a beneficiary and not a Consumer against the OPs. A person who takes benefit from an organization cannot stand as a Consumer.
3. Heard both the sides where in learned advocate for OPs emphasized on the aspect that Beneficiary can not claim to be a Consumer under C.P. Act,1986 and once a project becomes unfeasible laying of Pipe line and installation of Motor and energization is not required. Hence there are no latches on the part of the OPs. Complainant Shri Dehury on the other hand stated that as per terms and conditions of the agreement, OPs have to complete the digging and thereafter laying Pipe Line and installing electricity to the project within a month and they had remained negligent until initiation of the instant proceeding. Only after they received the notice of the Honourable Forum now they have started laying Pipe Lines and installing Electricity. Further, only after test-drilling and outcome of such test drilling being satisfactory the project was taken up and agreement was executed and he was asked to make deposit of his share. Hence unfeasible or Unsuccessful Project is not a fact but just nice-tice.
4. Having heard and after perusal of documents adduced by both the sides we find as follows :
INTRODUCTION :
It has been mentioned that Government of Odisha intends to launch a new scheme for exploitation of ground water resources through construction of deep bore wells in hard rock areas of the State with a view to augment irrigation potential mostly in blocks which have less than 35% irrigation.
OBJECTIVE :
To provide irrigation facilities for at least 1 Hectare of agricultural land through installation of bore-wells in hard rock areas for farmers individually or jointly alongwith electrical sub-station and power line in hard rock areas, mostly in blocks which have less than 35% irrigation. The ayacut area may increase depending on actual yield of each well. Such Blocks snail be identified subject to feasibility based on Ground Water data available from CGWB, Directorate of Ground Water Survey & Investigation, and National Remote Sensing Agency.
SALIENT FEATURES OF THE SCHEME:
IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS:
Beyond doubt it is a fact that Biju Krushak Vikas Yojana – Deep Bore Well Secha Karyakrama is Government Sponsored Welfare Scheme and in the instant case the Complainant is a Beneficiary. Hence, Complainant is not entitled to knock at the doors of Consumer Forum against the Govt. in Water Resources Department under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter termed as Act) since he is not at all a “Consumer” as defined under Sec.2(1) of the Act. But Scenario is different with Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation. OPs in their written version have claimed that they are simply Executors of the Scheme. In the Guide Line also it has been stated under heading IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS: Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. under the Department of Water Resources shall be responsible for the implementation of the scheme in 166 blocks of. 17 districts. Now the point of consideration floats to : whether OLIC is a Govt. Department ? We quote the following from the Content of Web-Portal of http://www.odishalift.co.in/
JXÞhÐ DWÐSfÒjQ_ _ÞNc eþÐSÔeþ HL @NõZÑ _ÞNc bþÐÒa ]ÑOà 41 aià ÒkþmþÐ QÐiÑcÐ_*ʼ ÒjaÐ ÒdÐÒNB Ò]B AjÊRÞ¼¼Ð _ÞNceþ S_ê 1973 cjÞkþÐ @LçÒVÐaeþ cÐj 1 [ÐeÞþMÒeþ¼¼Ð HkÞþ _ÞNc ]éÐeþÐ @aÞhõÐ«Æ bþÐÒa `õÒ[ÔL aià _Ë[_ DWÐSfÒjQ_ `õLÁ¤cÐ_ [ÞAeÞþ ÒkþÐB AjÊRÞ J eþÐSÔeþ jcªÆ `õЫÆÒeþ HkþÐ QÐiÑ*¼ ]éÐeþÐ LÐdàÔÒeþ aÞ_ÞÒdÐN ÒkþÐB `ÐeÊþRÞ¼¼Ð 1973 cjÞkþÐ `ËaàeÊþ HkþÐ LóiÞ aÞbÐþN @^Ñ_Òeþ HL jeþLÐeþÑ aÞbþÐN eËþÒ` LÐdàÔLeÞþ AjÊ\ÞmþÐ J ÒjÒ[ÒaÒf HkþÐ eþÐSÔeþ jcªÆ @qfÒeþ aÔÐ`L bþÐÒa _ÞcàÐZ LeþÐdÐB `ÐeÊþ_\Þmþм¼Ð Lõch: eþÐSÔ jeþLÐeþ*¼ Green Revolution ÒdÐS_ÐLÊ jÐLÐeþ LeÞþaÐ mþlÔÒeþ HkþÐLÊ aÔÐ`L LeþÐNmþм¼Ð xxxxxxþ
Also from the Organogram of OLIC uploaded to the Web-Portal supra it is visualised that it is headed by a Board of Directors and it is not a Government Department whose beneficiary is the Complainant in the case in hand.
Now Complainant to be qualified as Consumer under the Act, the question, whether he pays any consideration for the services rendered by OLIC – has to be considered. We examined the Leaflet circulated by OLIC, Guidelines for Biju Krushak Vikas Yojana – Deep Bore Well Secha Karyakrama,2010 filed by OP and its modification in 2015 downloaded from the Web-portal and found that :
DWÐSfÒjQ_ aÞbþÐN kÞþ[Ð^ÞLÐeþÑ*¼WÐeÊþ ]eþMÐªÆ `ÐBaÐeþ 120 ]Þ_ c^ÔÒeþ Feasibility Report D`ÒeþÐ¦Æ aÔÐ*¼LÊ ]ÐMmþ LeÞþÒa¼¼Ð d]Þ `õLÁ¤VÞ Feasibile ÒkþÐB\ÐH, [Ð ÒkþÒmþ ]ÐMmþ LeÞþ\ÞaÐ @Õh^_ AE 270 ]Þ_ `ÐBÜ aÔÐ*¼Òeþ ScÐ eþkÞþa¼¼Ð DWÐSfÒjQ_ aÞbþÐN 270 ]Þ_ c^ÔÒeþ `õLÁ¤ LÐdàÔ jËÆÀठLeÞþ Completion Certificate jkÞþ[ kÞþ[Ð^ÞLÐeþÑ*ʼ kþªÆЫÆeþ LeÞþÒa¼¼Ð aÔÐ*¼Òeþ NoÞ[ \ÞaÐ kÞþ[Ð^ÑLÐeþÑ*¼ @Õheþ jcªÆ V*¼Ð D¦Æ aÔÐ*ç¼ DWÐSfÒjQ_ aÞbþÐN LÊ Ò`ßW LeÞþÒa¼¼Ð
d]Þ, DWÐSfÒjQ_ aÞbþÐN AD @^ÞL jc¯Æ ]eþLÐeþ LÒeþ Ò[Òa QÐiÑ*¼ jkþc[ÞÒeþ HL undertaking aÔÐ*¼LÊ Ò]B AD 180 ]Þ_ `ÐBÜ D`ÒeþÐ¦Æ ScÐLÊ eÞþ_ÊÔ LeÞþ `õLÁ¤LÊ HkÞþ _ÞwàÐeÞþ[ jc¯Æ c^ÔÒeþ jçæÆÀठLeþÐdÞa¼¼Ð HkÞþ _ÞwàÐeÞþ[ 180 ]Þ_ c^ÔÒeþ `õLÁ¤ jçæÆÀठÒkþÒmþ completion Certificate aÔÐ*¼LÊ `õ]Ð_ LeþÐdÞa J aÔÐ*ç¼ Òeþ NoÞ[ \ÞaÐ kÞþ[Ð^ÞLÐeþÑ*¼ @Õheþ jcªÆ V*¼Ð D¦Æ aÔÐ*ç¼ DWÐSfÒjQ_ aÞbþÐNLÊ Ò`ßW LeþÐdÞa¼¼Ð”
“10.If the OLIC submits a report stating that the project is infeasible, or that the cluster does not muster at least 4 beneficiaries, or if the OLIC fails to submit a Feasibility Report with the stipulated first 120 days, then the escrow ends, and on maturity of the Fixed Deposit, the beneficiary is free to collect it, with the due interest, from the bank, following the bank’s procedures. He does not need any clearance from the OLIC. However, the bank shall deduct Rs.1000 from that sum towards Application fee and Processing charges, and transfer it to OLIC’s account.
13.On receiving the Completion Certificate, the bank shall, on maturity of the Deposit, i.e. after the term of the Fixed Deposit (270 days) is over, release the Fixed Deposit, along with the accrued interest, to the account of OLIC.
16. If the OLIC fails to submit either the Completion Certificate or the Undertaking for Extension of time before the second Fixed Deposit term of 270 days ends, then it is deemed that the project is a failure; then the escrow is deemed to be over and the beneficiary is free to collect the Fixed Deposit on its maturity with the accrued interest. He does not need any clearance from the OLIC. However, the bank shall deduct Rs.1000 from that sum towards Application Fee and Processing charges, and transfer it to OLIC’s account.
17. If the OLIC gets an extension of time, then the work must be completed within the extended 180 days; and on completion, the OLIC must submit a Completion Certificate to the bank, signed by the beneficiary, and on maturity of the Deposit, the bank shall release the Fixed Deposit and accrued interest to the account of OLIC.
18. If the OLIC fails to complete the project and submit the Completion Certificate within the extended 180 days, then the escrow is deemed to be over, and the beneficiary may collect the Fixed Deposit on maturity with the accrued interest. He does not need any clearance from the OLIC. However, the bank shall deduct Rs.1000/- from that sum towards Application Fee and Processing charges, and transfer it to OLIC’s account.”
It is very much clear that the share in case of feasible project and the non-refundable amount of Rs.1000/- in shape of application fee and processing charges in case of infeasible projects being transferred & credited to the account of OLIC forms the consideration. In the instant case an amount of Rs.19,000/- is received in cash through Money receipt marked Exbt.P/1. Hence we rule out the challenge that complainant is not a consumer under the Act but simply a beneficiary. We hold the opinion that the Complainant is a Consumer of OLIC.
This corroborates averment of the complainant. If it was a matter of fact that project was infeasible depending upon the geographic features of the land as contended by the OP and reason for which Pipes not laid and installation of Pumping Unit & energization was not done, then it was not necessary to ask for deposit of farmer’s share.
Hence we have to believe submission of the complainant that the project is a feasible one and that action of OPs is deficient. The deficiency of service on the part of OPs have led financial loss to the Complainant since he could not utilise the benefit made available to him by the State Government for Ravi phasala for the year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. As such I order as under:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to complete the remaining work and handover the Bore Well to the complainant complete in all respect within a month from date of pronunciation of this order and to pay Rs.30,000/-. ( Rupees thirty thousand ) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand ) as litigation expenses to the Complainant within 45 ( Forty five) days of receipt of this order failing which the O.P. shall have to pay in addition, an interest of 9% per annum till actually the amount is paid in course of Law.
Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
Order is pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 10TH. Day of November 2016 under my hand and seal of this forum.
I agree
(Jayanti Pradhan) (P.C. Mahapatra)
MEMBER (W) MEMBER
Dictated and Corrected by me.
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.