Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/50/2016

Sudakshyya Kumar Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop. S.K. Borewell Angul & others. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Sep 2017

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL 

C.C.Case No. 50 of 2016

Sudakshya Kumar Rout, 

S/o late Rohit Kumar Rout, aged about 41 years 

Permaent resident of Chhadasingh, 

PO: Badanagana, PS: Sadar,

District: Dhenkanal, 

at present residing at Gopabandhu Chowk, Burla, PO/PS: Burla, Dist: Sambalpur ……………………………………….. Complainant 

Versus 

1) Prop. S.K.Borewell Angul, P.S/Dist: Angul 

2) Shri Bijay Kumar Sahu, Manager S.K.Borewell, Angul 

3) Shri Sushanta Kumar Hota, Son of Srikanta Hota Agent of S.K.Borewell, 

Angul and Resident of Chhodasingh, PO: Badanagana, P.S: sadar, District: Dhenkanal ……………………..…………….Opp. Parties 

Present: Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President, 

Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member

Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, Member 

Counsel: For the complainant: 

In person For the Opp. Party No.1: 

In person For the Opp. Party No.2 & 3: Prakash Das 

Date of hearing argument: 13.9.2017 

Date of order: 22.9.2017 

JUDGMENT 

Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member 

         In the matter of an application U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties. 

                           1) In brief, the case of the complainant stated that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in advance to the Opp. Party No.1 on 21.4.2016 for digging a bore well in front of his house at village Chhadasingh and accordingly the Opp. Party No.1 has dig a bore well about 400 ft on 21./22.4.2016. During digging process, the operator of the machine was unable to withdraw the digging machine and two nos of digging pipes from the well and Opp. Party No.1 assured the complainant to dig another bore well within three to four days. After two months the Opp. Parties did not come forward to dig another bore well nor refunded the amount paid by the complainant. As the Opp. Parties failed to dig the bore well, the family members of the complainant suffered a lot. Therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum seeking for a direction to the Opp. Parties to dig another bore well or to refund the amount with interest. Besides, the complainant claims compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service. The contents of the petition are supported by affidavit. 

                      2) The Opp. Parties appeared. Opp. Party No.1 only filed written version. The O.P.No.2 & 3 though appeared despite several adjournments no written version is filed. It is in the version of the O.P.No.1 that the petition is not coming under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and the petition is not maintainable. The allegations of the complainant are totally false and denied. It is denied that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in advance to the Opp. Party No.1 on 21.4.2016 for digging a bore well in front of his house at Village Chhadasingha. The Opp. Party does not know the petitioner nor has he received any amount from the complainant as alleged. It is admitted that the O.P.No.1 has a Bore Well Machine and he usually lend it to different persons and the said persons took the machine only on hire. For digging of bore well the O.P.No.1 has no relation at all. It is further stated that the O.P.No.2 is not a Manager of the O.P.No.1 nor the O.P.No.3 is his agent. They are no way connected with the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 has no knowledge that the machine worked on 21/22.4.2016 for complainant. Accordingly, it is pleaded that the case may be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service. The contents of the written version are supported by affidavit.

                         3) On the aforesaid pleadings of the respective parties the issues before us to be determined as to whether the complainant is a consumer and whether the Opp. Parties are in deficiency of service? The sole allegation of the complainant as stated that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for digging a bore well to the Opp. Party No.1 who had dig a bore well in front of the premises of the complainant but failed to do so and promised to dig another bore well within a short period but he did not come forward to dig the bore well nor returned the amount paid by the complainant which amounts deficiency in service. On the other hand the Opp. Party No.1 denied the allegations of the complainant and specifically pleaded that he has never received the amount from the complainant for digging the bore well though he is the owner of Bore Well Machine. It is also pleaded that the O. P No.1 has no connection with the O.P.No.2 & 3 and he has not committed any deficiency in service and accordingly pleaded to dismiss the complaint. On the above rival contentions of the respective parties we have gone through the documents available on record. On our perusal of the documents available on record we find that the complainant has filed a petition stating therein on 21.4.2017 that he has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Opp. Party No.1 in presence of O.P.No.3 and other witness of his village namely Nibaran Mohanty, Bimbadhar Swain, Badal Mohanty. But the complainant failed to adduce any evidence by way of affidavit of such witness nor examined the above persons to prove that he has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Opp. Party No.1. Another vital aspect of the case that the complainant in order to prove his case he could not file any documentary evidence as regards to payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the Opp. Party No.1. In absence of any documents and evidence as regards to payment of Rs. 50,000/- by the complainant to the Opp. Party No.1 we are unable to come to a conclusion that the complainant has hired the services of the Opp. Parties on payment of consideration. Further the complainant failed to establish that the Opp. Party No. 2 & 3 are the Manager and Agent respectively under the O.P.No.1 more particularly when the O.P.No.1 denies any relation with the O.P.No.2 & 3. Therefore, in absence of any documents and evidence as regards to payment of consideration by the complainant to the O.P.No.1 towards hiring of services could not be established  by the complainant. Hence in our considered opinion that the complainant has not hired the services of the Opp. Parties for which the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties. Hence ordered. 

ORDER 

The complaint of the complainant stands dismissed in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. In the peculiar facts and circumstances parties are left to bear their own cost. 

( Punra Ch. Mishra)                    (Badal Bihari Pattanaik)                       (Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy) 

          Member                                     President                                                        Member