DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.06 OF 2017
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member .
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy - Member .
Sri Debendra Pradhan, aged about -45 years
S/O: Late Bandasa Pradhan Village – Sikabadi PO: Tajungia
PS: Brahmanigan. Dist: Kandhamal ……………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
P.A, I.T.D.A, Baliguda, Kandhamal
At/PO- Baliguda Dist: Kandhamal …………………………….. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Self.
For the OPP. Parties: Self.
Date of Order: 30-08-2017
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in short is that he had received a work order from the O.P on 22-06-2010 to construct the Check dam over the Pitamaha Nala for Rs. 3,00000/-. Then he started the construction work and intimated the O.P but no body has inspected his work. Due to death of his wife he could not proceed with the work and intimated the O.P in the year 2013. Then the concerned Engineer inspected his work and assured him to pay one Lakh towards his construction work but the O.P demanded the report from the local Sarapancha and the public for the purpose. So, he submitted the report of the Sarapancha and General public before the O.P but no payment was made in favor of him by the O.P. He had constructed the said work by taking loan of Rs. 1, 00000/- in interest but he had not received any money from the office of the O.P. so, this complaint was filed by him for a direction to the O.P to pay Rs. 1,00000/- towards his construction work.
The case of the O.P as per his version is that one project i.e. “Construction of Check Dam at Pitamaha of Gadapur G.P of Daringbadi Block” has been taken up by I.T.D.A Bliguda in the year 2010 with an estimated cost of Rs. 3,00,000/-as per recommendation of Pali sabha of Dhusarigaon . The said work has been entrusted to the Complainant and work order was issued on 22-06-2010 for execution with a direction to the Complainant to complete the work latest by 21-08-2010. He has not constructed the check Dam over the proposed Nala but he constructed a small wall near
-2-
the Nala , which is not as per plan , for which the payment has not been done. On 05-02-2011 Sri A. M Das, Ex- Jr Engineer of this agency had visited the work site and reported on 25-08-2012 that Sri Pradhan has not constructed the check Dam over the proposed Nala as per proposed estimate. This fact also intimated to the Complainant vide this office Letter No. 1870 dated 31-08-2012. The Assistant Executive engineer and concerned J.E of I.T.D.A, Baliguda have visited the site and submitted a report. The copy of the said report along with photo copy of the site is enclosed for reference.
During course of hearing we have heard the parties. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version of the O.P, the affidavit filed by the Complainant and all Exhibits and the documents filed by both the parties in support of their case. It is an admitted fact that the construction of check dam has been entrusted to the Complainant by the O.P as per work order dated 22-06-2010. It is also admitted by the O.P that the Complainant has constructed a small wall near the Nala. So, it is presumed that the Complainant has invested some money towards the construction of work as per the order of the O.P. The Assistant Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer, I.T.D.A Baliguda visited the spot on 09-06-2017 after filing the complaint and detected that there is a concrete wall which has not been done over Nala and not as per estimate prepared. The letter No 1870 dated 31-08-2012 is connected with the information given to the Complainant by the Assistant Public Information Officer, I.T.D.A Baliguda on R.T.I Act. The O.P had not given any letter to the Complainant in any point of time since the year 2010 to show that the construction work of the Complainant was not as per plan and estimate for which the payment has not been done. The O.P is also silent regarding the investment of the said estimated cost. The Complainant was also not advised by the O.P for necessary correction of his work or to close the work to engage another person for the purpose.
In absence of any intimation to the Complainant by the O.P regarding his quality of work amounts to gross negligence on the part of the O.P. The plea of the O.P is completely after thought. The Complainant has invested some money for construction of work as per order of the O.P and he is entitled to get his due in the spirit of natural justice. It reveals from the Exit -2, 3 & 4 that the Complainant has constructed the check Dam and it is also reported by the Sarapancha of Gadapur and Bamunigom G.P as well as the Public. It also reveals from the affidavit and the complaint petition of the Complainant that he had constructed the said work by taking loan of one lakh with interest and he is suffering since last 7 years to get back his invested money from the O.P. Hence the contract is violated. If the Complainant had not completed the work within time, what made the Opp. Party not to take any action in the relevant period? So, it is clear that nobody had inspected the work of the Complainant in the relevant period. There is also nothing to disbelieve the report of Sarapanch of the G.P and the Public also.
-3-
In the above circumstances, the complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part. Hence, the O.P is directed to estimate the construction work of the Complainant and pay the cost of the work to the Complainant considering his investment in the work within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order along with Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
With above direction the C.C is disposed of. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
