J U D G M E N T
Sri Rama Chandra Das, President - The complainant has filed this complaint on 07-05-2014 under Sec 12 of C.P Act with prayer to direct Ops to execute the work as per the estimate on the estimated place, to give compensation of Rs 50,000/- for violation of estimate and using low cost materials along with litigation cost of 20,000/- and Rs 20,000/- for mental agony.
The case of the complainant is that he is the beneficiary of the Ops. The Government sanctioned Rs 5,00,000/- vide letter No 141 dt. 18-01-2012 for the construction of A.W.C in Jagannath Prasad Phase – II in village Jagannath Prasad. The OP No.1 prepared the estimate and OP No.2 sanctioned the same technical to do the work as per estimate. OP No. 3 sent the estimate for its sanction to the Government and there after issued the work order in favor of Op No. 1 to complete the work within 3 months between 01-06-2012 to 01-09-2012. for one year the work was not taken up by Op No 1 but done the work partially. On 06-06-2013 the measurement was done by J.E Sanatan Bhol. As the work was not done as per the estimate and within stipulated period there was deficiency of service of the Ops to words the beneficiary. As per the estimate the work was to be done in Jagannath Prasad Primary School but it has been done near Jagannath Temple. Low materials have been used in the said work diminishing its longitivity Hence the complainant being the beneficiary under the Ops filled this complaint with the prayer as mentioned above.
The OP No.1 filed his written version on 18-07-2014 stating the complainant is neither the beneficiary of any Ops nor any body else regrading construction of Aganwadi center of Jagannath Prasad. He was working as J.E in Gania Block from 03-09-2010 to 17-06-2013. He was kept in charge of Adakata G.P along with some other G.P in Gania Block for monitoring and supervision of development work taken up by Gram Panchayat and Gania Block. He was issued with work order for the construction of AWC building at Jagannath Prasad village under Adakata G.P and Gania Block with on instruction to complete it within 3 months. Though he is to monitor and supervise the work but the work order was issued to him against the code. However as per the order of the authorities he under took necessary steps to execute the work within stipulated period. As per the departmental provision one suitable site was selected out of Govt. Land available for the construction of the building. The villagers of Adakata vehemently objected to construct the building on the selected site. So he searched for another suitable site but was in vain . Due to want of suitable Govt. land construction work for AWC could not be executed during the stipulated period. On 17-06-2013 he was relieved from Gania Block on transfer. He does not know the further development of the project after 17-06-2013 and if the project is executed beyond that date he is ignorant and may not be responsible for the fault of others and he is misjoinder. in the complaint and be exonerated from all the charges.
The OP No.2 filed his written version on 19-08-2014 stating that he was completed Aganawadi center at Jagannath Prasad village under Adakata G.P with the help of the villagers and handed over this building to C.D.P.O Gania Block for its function as per letter No 1158 dt 10-06-2014 of OP No.3. The photograph is attached for reference. The said building has been constructed over a plot as per the settlement of the villagers and is reflected in Panchayat Samiti Resolution of Gania Block in Sl. No 7 at page 81. The xerox copy attached with xerox copies of three application of the villagers for reference. The work has been constructed as per Odisha Standard specification and materials purchased from local qurry and local market for early completion. No less quality of material is used in this structure. The complaint may be dismissed with cost on the above circumstances.
The Op No.3 filed his written version on 21-10-2014 stating that the District Social Welfare Office, Nayagarh vide letter No. 141 dt 18-01-2012 has allowed the construction of AWC at Jagannath Prasad Phase – II under Adakata G.P and prepared plan and estimate for Rs. 500,000/- as per the Govt. letter No. 175 dt 28-02-2011. The J.E. (OP No.1) was communicated with the above order on 29-05-2012 and was asked to furnish the estimate before Op No. 3 for administrative approval. The work order for AWC was issued in faver of Op No.1 on 01-06-2012 under close supervision of OP No. 3 . The work of AWC is done as per the estimate using high quality of materials as per the estimated cost. As there was misunderstanding between the villagers and local Sarapanch they opposed the construction work lafter plinth foundation for which the time elapsed. Later the Sarpanch and the villagers approached OP No.3 to take back their objection application and to speed up work of AWC for the betterment of village children. The AWC already completed and handed over the CDPO on 10-6-2014. No low cost material has been used. The Sarpanch and Co-villagers are satisfied and co-operated in the development work of the Govt. The complainant has arosed a concocted case against the Ops with malafide motive showing deficiency of service. The complaint has no merit and may be dismissed with cost.
On the above pleadings of the parties the following issues has been framed for the determination of the complaint.
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the opposite parties being the beneficiary have availed of their services with the approval of the state Govt./District Social welfare Office, Nayagarh who place the fund for the construction of AWC at Jagaaanathprasad Phase-II under Adakata G.P ?
2. Whether there was any deficiency of services on the part of the Ops for the construction of AWC ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief claimed in his complainant ?
The complainant in order to prove his case has given his evidence along with evidence of co-villager Biupin Naik and Bira kishore Sahoo on affidavit and relied on the xerox copies of documents as mentioned in his complaint. The OP No.2 filed his evidence on affidavit and relied on the xerox copies of documents filed with his written version and the said documents sent vide his letter No.1122 dated 09.6.2014 and one agreement filed on 05-9-2014. The OP No.3 filed his evidence on affidavit along with the evidence of the villagers namely Rabindra Kumar Karan, Chitaranjan Karan and Bibhutibhusan Jena and filed no documents.
Findings
Issue No.1 : It is admitted fact that lthe Chief Secretary to Govt. vide letter No.175 dated 28-2-2011 allotted Rs.5,00,000/- for the construction of AWC at JaganathPrasas Phase -II under Adakata G.P and the District Social Welfare Office, Nayagarh wrote a letter to OP No.3 vide No.141 dated 18-01-2012 to prepare plan and estimate for the said amount for the construction of above AWC . Accordingly OP No.3 in his letter dated 29-5-2012 asked OP No.1 to furnish the estimate before him. Therefore the work order was issued in favour of OP No.1 on 01-06-2012 for the execution of the work. As per OP No.1 he undertook necessary steps for the construction work and selected a site on the Govt land but the villagers of Adakata vehemently objected for which the work could not be executed within 3 months form the issue of work order. On 17-6-2013 he was relieved form his post so he does not what happened to the said project work. As per OP No.2 and OP No.3 the objection by same villagers was withdrawn and the construction work has been completed and handed over to CDPO by OP No.3 vide letter No.1158 dated 10.6.2014 and the xerox copy of the letter shows that the S.A. of ICDS Gania received the copy of letter with lock and key of that building.The complainant who is the one of the villagers of Jagannath Prasad filled this complaint relying on the decision reported in 1995 (I) CPR 818 Sri Shyam sundar Mohanty Vs Secy. Gramin Consumer Labour Association and two others, where in an association espoused the cause of the school before the District Forum. In the instant case no voluntary Consumer Association has filed this case to put forth the grievances against the opposite parties. As per Sec 2 (d) (ii) “consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other then the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose ” From the above definition it clearly reveals that the beneficiary of such services will be treated as consumer when such services are availed of with the approval of the fist mentioned person. In the instant case the State Government who alloted the fund in favour of District Social welfare Office, Nayagarh are the first person to avail the services of the Ops. If the beneficiary when availed such services with the approval of the State Govt. or District Social welfare Office, then he can file the case as consumer.
The complainant has not avail any services of the Ops with the approval of State Govt. or District Social Welfare Office Nayagarh prior to execution of the work order for the construction of AWC at Jaganathprasad phase-II under Adakata G.P. The State Govt. or District Social Welfare Office, Nayagarh is the proper person as per Secrtion2(b)(iii) to file the complaint as complainant being the consumer as per Sec-2(d)(ii) of C.P Act. In the decision refered by the complainant in that there was construction of a a building of a School . In the instant case a new building was to be constructed for the AWC at Jaganathprasad phase-II. Therefore the decision cited by the complainant is not helpful to him. So for the complainant is not a consumer being beneficiary with the approval of State Govt. or District Social Welfare Office to file the complaint and the complaint is not maintainable.
Issue No.2 :- The complainant and his two witnesses have state in their affidavits that instead of constructing AWC in JaganathPrasad Primary School it has been constructed near Jaganath Temple. The selection of site rest on the village committee for the execution of the construction work.The OP No.2 and OP No.3 so also other three witnesses have state in their affidavits that due to differences of views among he villagers and Sarapanch the construction work was stopped but subsequently on the withdrawn of their objection the work has been completed and handed over to CDPO on 10.6.2014. The non completion of work within stipulated period was due to different views of the villagers and Sarapanch as regards to the slater. The xerox copies of application of the villagers of Jaganathprasad dated 01-5-2014 the separate applications of Jaganathprasad villagers and Sarpanch dated 25-4-2014 addressed to OP No.3 clearly shows that they have withdrawn their objection and asked to complete the work of AWC and accordingly the work was completed and AWC has been handed over to CDPO on 10-6-2014. The delay in completion of the work was from the side of the villagers but as soon as the objection was withdrawn the work has been completed within 2 months. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops in execution of the work and are not liable for any compensation.
Issue No.3 :- The complainant and his two witnesses have state that low cost materials have been used in the construction but no technical export has given any evidence in this regard. The OP No.2, OP No.3 and three witnesses have stated that the materials have been purchased from local quarry and market and low quality material is not used. The OP No.2 is the Asst. Engineer and on export on the construction material and his evidence can not be doubted. Since the construction of AWC building has been completed without using less quality material and on the site as agreed by the villagers for the Welfare of children within 2 months from 25-4-2014 there was no defficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is not maintainable being the complainant is not the beneficiary, is not entitled for any relief claimed in the complaint. Hence we order
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed on contest but without any cost.
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 28th November , 2014.
