DATE OF DISPOSAL: 27.03.2024.

PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.

            2. The Opposite Party Smt. Priyambada Kumura is a ‘A’ class contractor by profession and was awarded the work namely “Improvement to road from Kanakaha Junction to near Kanakaha country road junction of Chheligada Irrigation Project” under office of the Executive Engineer, Chheligada Headwork Division, Mahendragada, Gajapati vide Agreement No. 02P1/2015-16. Since the O.P. was busy in other works having no time to complete the aforesaid tender work hence appointed the complainant as Special Power of Attorney executed on 10^th September, 2015. In the aforesaid special power of Attorney, the complainant was appointed to discharge the following works on behalf of the O.P.-

(i) To complete the aforesaid tender work.

(ii) To purchase raw materials for the same and engage labourers and machineries for the said work.

(iii) To give payment to the labourers and hiring charges of machineries deployed for said work.

(iv) To sign measurement book.

(v) To complete the tender work within stipulated period as directed by the concerned authority and such all works.

As per the tender, the work was completed and after submitting the account bills to Chheligada Head works Division, Chheligada, the bill has been passed and the O.P. received Rs. 14,44,471/- leaving Rs.25,00,000/-.  The amount of Rs.14,16,000/- has been credited to the account No. 2812000100052915 of the complainant on 03.07.2020. The complainant has rendered his service in way of engagement of labourers, payment of labour charges and other such items as defined in para-3 above in utilizing the personal money etc. The O.P. has to clear and defects of the bill so that payment of balance of Rs.25,00,000/- from the Chheligada Irrigation Project will get but the O.P. is not responding inspite of approaches by the complainant. The special power of Attorney was prepared and signed at Berhampur before the Notary Public, Berhampur and the complainant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. For the deficiencies of services on the part of the O.P. the complainant being beneficiary faced harassment causing mental agony. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to sign the bill so that the complainant receive the pending payments of Rs.25,00,000/-, compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- in the best interests of justice.

            3. Notice was issued to the Opposite Party but he neither chooses to appear nor filed any written version. Hence the O.P:. set exparte on dated 27.06.2023.

            4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the advocate for complainant is present. The Commission heard argument from him for the complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written argument and materials placed on the case record.

Basing on the sole testimony, the complainant being beneficiary of the contract is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the opposite party is the service provider accordingly.

             In the instant case, while analyzing the evidences, the complainant provided services to the opposite party in accordance to the Special Power of Attorney executed on 10^th September, 2015 within stipulated time period. But the opposite party did not pay the benefits to the complainant in reference to the Special Power of Attorney dated: 10.09.2015. The very act of the opposite party speaks about the unfair trade practice and violation of the agreement which is enforceable as per Indian Contract Act. The law is well settled in catena of cases laid down by the Apex Court of India that, both the parties of the contract are strictly abide by contractual obligations else amounts to a deficiency in service and ‘consumers’ has right to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability. In view of the judgment in Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Versus Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 36, the Commission allowed the complaint against the opposite party.

            In the light of the above decision of law, the opposite party is directed to sign the bills of Cheligada Irrigation Project pertaining to Agreement No.:02P1/2015-16 to enable the complainant to receive the pending payments of Rs.25,00,000/- along with accrued interest with effect from 10.09.2015. The opposite party is further directed to execute the above order in letter and spirit and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.15000/- within 45 days from the date of receipt of the Order. In the event of non-compliance of the above order by the opposite party, the entire dues shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till the date of complete realisation of amount and the complainant is at liberty to recover the said entire dues with above interest in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 27.03.2024