This is a complaint U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 with the prayer for order directing the O.Ps. to pay compensation of Rs.27,600/-, tender amount and of Rs.1,24,700/- for expenses incurred in fishing in the pond following tender and of Rs.15,000/- for unnecessary harassment.

The complaint case in short is that following a tender invited by Hemtabad Gram Panchayet to lease pond under the Panchayet for fish farming purpose, the complainant, an unemployed person, on 09.07.2014 took lease of the pond at village Kakar Singh under PS Hemtabad. The complainant deposited the highest bid money of Rs.27,600/- for the contract of two (02) years on lease. The pond is known as Chouhar Pond in that village at Dag No. 1091, JL No. 86 amounting to 0.91 cent of area. On that day he also deposited security money of Rs.8,000/- and paid further Rs.19,600/- on 05.08.2014, total Rs.27,600/-. From 09.07.2014 he started to clean the pond to make it ready for fishing and expended Rs.3,000/- for applying lime other medicines and feed for the fish etc. It costs total about Rs.10,000/-. The trouble arose when on 22.08.2014 the owners of the adjoining land holder of the pond arranged fencing of their respective lands/ plots making it impossible for the complainant to have free egress and ingress into the said pond for fish cultivation. The complainant therefore on 25.08.2014 applied to the O.P., Panchayet to take immediate steps so that the complainant had easy access to the pond for fishing purpose and maintenance of the pond. On 01.09.2014 O.P., Panchayet call for the adjoining owners of the plots surrounding the pond by giving notice to amicably settle the matter, but with no result. The complainant verbally appealed to all and frantically submitted that all the fishes in the pond would be perished causing a huge loss of Rs.1,52,300/-, which the complainant already incurred as expenses for fishing in that pond. As the complainant was not able to solve the problem with the O.P. he has no other alternative but to file this case in this Forum praying for remedies and compensation as stated above. 

Panchayet Pradhan was first made opposite party in this case and following amendment of the plaint, vide order No.04, dated 02.12.2014, the BDO of Hemtabad Block and Sabhadhipati of the Hemtabad Panchayet were added as O.P. No. 2 and 3 respectively. O.P. No.1 appeared to contest the suit a, but afterwards did not file any written version and fails to take any steps. So also O.P. No.2 and 3 did not contest the case in spite of receiving notices. The case, therefore, heard exparte against all the O.Ps.

To prove the case complainant filed affidavit of examination-in-chief and tendered the same as P.W.1. He deposed as per version of the complaint and submitted documents like receipts of Hemtabad Gram Panchayet, Letters to the Pradhan of Panchayet, Notice of Panchayet Miscellaneous Receipts of Rs.8,000/-, and Rs.19,600/- showing expenses on Lime, Fertilizer, Fish, Mustered Cake, Medicines etc. and has relied upon on those  documents.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing argument advanced by the Lawyer for the complainant, this Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

The complainant has been able to prove by sufficient documents that following the tender he offered the highest bid for taking lease of the said pond in question on 09.07.2014. It also appears from the evidence as well as documents that he started the pond fishing and a considerable amount of money and labour was employed to start the fish farming in that pond. From the letter dated 20.08.2014 to the Pradhan of Hemtabad Panchayet, the complainant is able to prove prima-facie his said fish farming was seriously affected when the adjoining plot holders of the pond put fencing, giving resistance to the complainant to his egress and ingress in the pond. Obviously, it causes huge financial loss and mental harassment. Complainant alleged that the panchayet neglected and refused to provide the amenities of pond fishing which were agreed under the contract of lease of the said pond. Though the document, the contract of lease, if any in writing, showing terms and conditions is not supplied by the complainant to this Forum but it is prima-facie proved that he suffered financial loss and mental agony etc. Admittedly the complainant entered into a contract, taking lease of the pond. But it is a lease of immoveable property and the default or omission on the part of the O.Ps., which were complained of were in relation to their obligation under the said contract relating to lease of fishing in that pond for a term of two (02) years and necessarily on immovable property. The grievance could not fault within the scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since there was no ‘hiring of service’ for consideration so as to entitle the complainant to claim the status of a ‘consumer’. As a result this Forum is not able to give any relief to the complainant as prayed for. So, the complaint case fails.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence it is,

ORDERED

That the complaint being No.CC-93/2014 is dismissed exparte.

Copy of this order be supplied to each parties free of cost.