Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.        This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has got recorded land in the name of his mother and he became beneficiary under the BGJY (irrigation scheme) for electrification to his L.I.Point. For the purpose of power supply to the L.I.Point under the scheme the complainant has to bear 20%  out of the total estimated cost by the beneficiary and rest of 80% to be borne by the Govt. respectively. It is alleged that OP Nos. 1 o 3 have designed the estimated cost and they  put the estimate for Rs.2,50,820/- and complainant had to deposit Rs.50,164/- i.e. 20% of the estimated amount with OP Nos. 1 to 3 but deposited Rs.1,03,853/- on 15.9.2011.  The District administration represented by OP No. 4 issued work order against OP No. 5. It is alleged inter alia that the materials used was sub-standard and  the number of poles  were not used for which the complainant made complaint before OP No.4. Since no action was taken, he filed the complaint showing deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

4.        OP Nos. 1 to 3 filed joint written version sating that they have not violated provisions of any law and governed by OERC (Conditions of supply), 2004 notification dated 21.5.2004. The necessary supply of 5 KW LI Point at the land of the complainant was approved by the District Agriculture Officer. After the feasibility tested, the necessary payment was deposited by the complainant to the extent of Rs. 1,03,853/- on 15.9.2011. Except that the complainant has not deposited any other amount. Since under the scheme the OP Nos. 1 to 3 have limited scope, they have no any liability. However, later on the revised estimate was prepared by OP Nos. 1 to 3 on the request of OP No. 4. Since the matter was looked after by OP No. 4, any excess amount collected as per the complainant must be paid by OP No. 4. Therefore, OP Nos. 1 to 3 have no deficiency in service on their part.

5.        OP No. 4 filed written versionstatingthat  OP No. 4 has prepared the estimated cost for electrification to the land of the complainant as per order issued by the Collector, Nabarangpur. As per the scheme OP No. 1   should prepare bills, measure and submit the report to OP No. 4  to release the fund. That as per office order the estimated cost of 1 KW  LT line for LI point comes to Rs.1,90,000/- but again that was to be enhanced subject to limit of  10.25% escalationyearly from the year 2008-09 to 2010-11.Accordingly, complainant deposited 20% of Rs.2,09,475/- The entire work has been looked after by OP No. 1 but OP No. 1 did not work and remained silent as to the request of the complainant. Unless OP No. 1 send the revised estimate and report, the duty of OP No. 4 as enshrined in the scheme cannot be performed. OP No. 4 has paid money to the contractor as per the bill submitted by him  20% of share of the complainant on total work done costs  Rs.1,03,853/-. Since there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 4, there is no any liability of OP No. 4.

6.        OP No. 5 was set ex parte.

7.        After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“xxxxxxxxx

i. The Op No. 1 shall refund to the complainant Rs.1427/- (one thousand four hundred twenty seven) along with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand), which payment may be adjusted in future bills of the electrical set up of the complainant.

ii. The OP No. 4 shall immediately pay the complainant an amount of Rs.62,213.80 ps (sixty two  thousand two hundred thirteen& eighty paise) from the contingency fund available with him along with a simple interest of 12% per annum on the amount from the date of it’s payment i.e. from dt. 15.09.2011 itll the date of it’s reimbursement.

iii.        The above directions shall be complied within 30 days of despatch of this order failing which, the awarded sum will bear 12% interest per annum till its realization.

The parties to bear their own costs.”

8.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire scheme is being looked after by OP Nos. 1 to 3 and as per the estimate 20% would be borne by the complainant. He also submitted that the payment has been made by the complainant to OP Nos. 1 to 3 and there is no any relationship of service between the complainant and OP No. 4- appellant. Appellant is only facilitator to work out the scheme. The deficiency as narrated by the complainant lies with OP nos. 1 to 3 but not with OP No. 4 as he has no relationship with the complainant. He also submitted that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal may be allowed so far the direction to the present appellant is concerned.

9.        Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that OP No. 4 is remotely responsible for the loss caused to the complainant. He submitted that OP Nos. 1 to 3 have not come in appeal. On the other hand, he submitted that whatever payment by appellant is payable by OP Nos. 1 to 3. Therefore, he supports the impugned order with modification.

10.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

11.      From the beginning, it is made clear that there is no appeal preferred by OP Nos. 1 to 3 but appeal was only preferred by OP No. 4. It is found from OP No. 4 that the appellant was later on added as a party and the question of  excess amount of payment by the complainant to OP Nos. 1 to 3 due to estimate made by OP No. 4  which is due to escalationof cost. However, the entire record shows that the payment for the benefit has been made by the complainant to OP Nos. 1 to 3. When the scheme is only facilitated by OP No. 4 and the payment has been made to OP Nos. 1 to 3 or the contractor engaged by OP No. 4, the role of OP No. 4 is not a service provider as required under the Act to the complainant.

12.      Section 2(d) of the Act is very clear to show that the complainant who hires the service for consideration or pays the consideration for same can be a consumer. Also there is a provisionof law that if the person is provides service or purchase goods on behalf of beneficiary who actually does not pay for same also can be a consumer. Here the role of OP No. 4 admittedly is not there either directly or indirectly to became service provider. It is sure miscalculation on misconceived appreciation of material by the learned District Forum. The entire amount only can be payable by OP Nos. 1 to 3. In our opinion, OP No. 4 is not a service provider to be with liability as passed in para – 2 of the impugned order.

13.      Admittedly, OP Nos. 1 to 3 have not preferred appeal. Perhaps they are getting escape in the name of OP No. 4. We, therefore, only decide the case between the complainant and OP No. 4. In this regard since the complainant failed to prove that he is a consumer for availing the service of OP No. 4 as per the provisions of Act, any claim against OP No. 4 is not maintainable.

14.      In view of aforesaid discussion any excess amount paid by the complainant can be recovered from OP Nos. 1 to 3 because against OP No. 4 complainant cannot raise any claim under the Act. So direction against OP No. 4 in the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed only against the appellant. No cost.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.