Orissa

Rayagada

CC/77/2020

Sri Birendra Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri sudhir Dash - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__77_______/2020                                      Date.   10    .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

 

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri  Birendra   Naik, S/O: Late Sankar Prasad Naik, At: Sriram Nagar,  Po/Dist:Rayagada(Odisha).                                             …..Complainant.

Versus.

Sri Sudhir Dash, S/o: Sri SubashChandraDash,

C/O: SamparkFire& Safety Pvt. Ltd., Besides IOB, New Colony,Rayagada(Odisha)765001.…Oppositeparties.

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the  O.Ps:- Sri  Ram Prasad  Patra , Advocate, Rayagada.

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment of  balance amount a sum of Rs.87,000/- towards labour charges for construction of residential  house   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief facts of the case are summarized here under.

That the Opposite  Party (First Party) and   Complainant(Second Party)  had made agreement  between the parties   on Dt. Ist. Day of March,  2014. The  O.P. has owned a house site situated at Rohit  colony, of Rayagada.   The  O.P. had intended to construct  a RCC slabbed house at Ground & First floor over under     scheduled land and the  complainant  had agreed to construct  the houses  over the same  of complainant  by   masonry  contract   as per the approved plan  supplied by the  O.P. The  complainant had agreed to  build the  ground and first floor houses   as per the approved plan at the request of  the O.P. That both the parties  had agreed to  execute the   work at the cost of Rs.150.00  per square feet of the total slab area which includes the Stair case. The complainant had completed the work  of ground floor of the house   and the O.P. had  not constructed the  first floor.  The  complainant  had completed all the works of the  ground  floor of the O.P. As per agreement the complainant was entitled  Rs.87,000.00 (Rupees eighty seven thousand)only  to receive  from the O.P.  towards  labour charges  for  construction of house  of  the O.P.   But  till date the  O.P. has not paid the above amount for some or other plea. Hence this  C.C. case has filed  by the complainant   before this commission  and prays  direct the O.P to refund   balance amount  a sum of Rs.87,000/-  towards  labour charges  for construction  of residential house  and such  other relief as the District Commission  deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

             Upon  Notice, the O.Ps    put in their appearance and filed  written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act,  The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.   Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

            Undisputedly the Opposite  Party (First Party) and   Complainant(Second Party)  had made agreement  between the parties   on Dt. Ist. Day of March,  2014. The  O.P. has owned a house site situated at Rohit  colony, of Rayagada. Again undisputedly  the  O.P. had intended to construct  a RCC slabbed house at Ground Floor  over under     scheduled land and the  complainant  had agreed to construct  the houses  over the same  by   masonry  contract   as per the approved plan  supplied by the  O.P.  Again  undisputedly   both the parties  had agreed to  execute the   work at the cost of Rs.150.00  per square feet of the total slab area which includes the Stair case.

            The main grievance of the complainant was that he  is entitled balance amount  from the O.Ps    towards  labour  charges.  Hence this C.C. case  filed by the complainant  to get  the  balance amount.

            The O.Ps  in their written version   contended that   the case  is not maintainable.

The O.Ps are   taking one and another pleas in the written version and sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

The O.Ps  further   has field  payment  details  to the complainant in different dates  total a sum of Rs.2,98,390.00 which are available  in the file marked as Annexure-I. 

It is clearly stated  in the C.P. Act (Section-100  of the C.P.Act, 2019) that this Act is in addition to and not in derogation to the other statutes in force and as such the  petition  filed by the complainant  is a consumer dispute and this District Commission  can entertain the said petition.

 it  is held and reported in  SCC  1994 (1) page No. 243 in the case of Lucknow Development authority  Vrs. M.K.Gupta where in the Hon’ble Apex Court observed “Consumer and Service  under the C.P. Act, 1986 that the provisions of the Act must be liberally interpreted in favour of the consumers as the enactment in question was beneficial piece of legislation while examining the meaning of the term Consumer and service.”

It is   the  settled principle of law  that the  statutory authority should act under the provisions  of the relevant  statute and if they  do not act accordingly,  Consumer Commission  have the jurisdiction  because not acting under the  provisions  of the   statute/Act  and it amounts to deficiency   of service.

Further  if any authority  is not  acting under the provisions of the Act or is acting  beyond  the scope of the  Act, then certainly  that will be deficiency  of service.

The  complainant during the course of hearing submitted that  the O.P had done  extra  works   of residential building  but  no  labour  payment  has been  paid   to the complainant  inspite of  repeated contact to the O.Ps.

That  for failure  to act properly by the O.P. the complainant should not be deprived of his benefits legitmate entitlement.  It is to be ensured that the benefits to which  the complainant is eligible are entitled to enjoy it and it should not became a distant  dream.

As this is a welfare legislation this district  commission    feel it justifiable  if the O.P.  to   consider  for payment of balance outstanding  amount to the complainant  if any.  In  our considered opinion to avoid misunderstanding between the parties   this District  Commission  instructed they should sit together in friendly and befitting manner and to  discuss  about  if any  lapses or hindrances are there, that should be amicable settled   and to  settle the  final account  towards    extra works   done by the complainant for  construction of residential  house of the O.Ps.

            To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.                                      

 

ORDER.

            In resultant the complaint petition is allowed  in part

            The O.P. is directed  to  settle  the account matter  of the complainant and if any   amount is entitle   be paid to the  complainant  and compliance  report  be submitted to  this Commission  within  15 days  from the date of receipt of this order. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

Copies be  served on the parties as  per  rule. 

Dictated and corrected by me. 

Pronounced  on  this       10^th.   Day of    December,  2021.

 

                                                                               

Member.                                                             President

 

 

:-