J U D G E M E N T.
The Complainant has filed this case for allotment of Stall before Panchayat Samiti, Nuapada. He is by occupation a Tea maker and being a Handicapped person, he earned monthly income Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only from the Tea Stall Shop. The N.A.C., Nuapada has demolished the Cabin or Stall of the complainant by serving a notice vide No. 732 on dated 09.8.2014. The Complainant has written a grievance to Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Nuapada for provide him a Cabin newly constructed market complex in front of Panchyat Samiti, Nuapada for Self employment. The Chairman Panchyat Samiti ,Nuapada has allotted a new Cabin after demolition of Old Cabin and he allowed the petitioner in a monthly rent of 1210 vide its letter No.3402 dated 09.10.2014 issued from B.D.O Nuapada, As per direction of B.D.O Nuapada complainant has deposited Rs.40,000(Rupees Forty Thousand ) only cash and issue a receipt for the payment vide No.389 dated 10.10.2014 even the B.D.O has an agreement has been executed on stamp paper between the B.D.O Panchayat Samiti and the Complainant.
The Panchayat Samiti has allotted the complainant cabin No.16. The OP No.3 has cancelled the agreement of said allotted cabin and informed the complainant on dated 20.12.2014 for cancellation of agreement though he has deposited the caution money Rs. 40,000(Rupees Forty Thousand ) only for that purpose as per petition of the complainant , the OP No.3 and he has cancelled the agreement of both the parties and not allotted any cabin, The A.B.D.O Nuapada forcibly broke the locks supplied by D.S.MS offices and without any reason they has broken though which is meant for self help groups as per letter in annexure-viii for that reason the complainant has deprived of his cabin which is for has livelihood for own employment the opposite party personally and severally liable for the deficiency in service and equally compensate the loss caused by them though they deliver the cabin for the livelihood of the complainant for self employment.
The Complainant has filed the case and he has claimed Rs.75,000 (Rupees Seventy five Thousand ) only towards three month income 25,000 per each month income and Rs.20,000 towards mental agony and harassment and litigation cost Rs.5000 Total Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakhs )only.
The Opposite Party No.3 and 4 has filed their version and they said in their version. The Petitioner is an encroacher of Government land so he is not deserving no equity in his favour.
The Op No.4 has on request of the complainant has allotted one cabin to him the property and subject to pay Rs.40,000 (Rupees Forty Thousand ) only towards security money and signed an agreement in certain terms and condition. The 19 number market complex constructed by utility of funds Rs.16.00(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs)only under SGSY Scheme 2010-11,2011-12 released by project director DRDA, Nuapada. No.1 to 15 of cabin only for women self help group except No. 10 to 15 six cabin were lying vacant. After singed of agreement Mr. Saroj Kumar Hota Senior Clerk wrote the cabin No.17 on the top of agreement by showing undue favour to the Complainant with ill intention being influenced by the petitioner after agreement was signed by B.D.O, Nuapada. The petitioner/complainant has took away one copy without permission. The authority has already been issue show cause to the senior clerk Saroj Kumar Hota for manipulation of official documents. The cabin No. 17, 18 and 19 has already enmarked for the self help Group , for that reason the B.D.O has cancelled the agreement after verifying the term and condition of the cabins purpose, therefore the petitioner cannot claim any Compensation or allotment of any cabin as the purpose is defined the petitioner/complainant has is not Consumer as defined in C.P Act hence the case is not maintainable.
The Complainant Sri Santaram Dandsena has filed a wrote petition in Hon’ble High Court of Odisha vide act WP(C) No.3580/2015 Hon’ble High Court has passed an order on 27.02.2015 as cabin No.16, situated in front of Panchayat Samiti office is kept reserved without being allotted till next date ”As per the order B.D.O, Nuapada has not delivered possession of the cabin No.16 to the petitioner to comply with the order of Hon’ble High Court on dated 27.02.2015.
That the Writ petition is pending or Sub-judice in High Court the case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The District Forum on consideration of the argument of both the parties after hearing.
The Hon’ble Forum has verified all relevant documents filed by both the parties and come to the conclusion as the petitioner/complainant has filed a Writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court vide case No.29/2014 which was Sub-judice in the High Court .As he has concealed in the petition filed by him in the Forum. Even he never say about his forceful encroachment of Govt premises without proper agreement and fulfilled their term and conditions of Ops . The Ops has already refund the security deposit of Rs.40,000(Rupees Forty Thousand) only to the petitioner after verifying. Knowingly favourtism of the senior clerk Saroj Kumar Hota who has allotted the cabin by writing Number which was intentional in nature of this case.
The opposite party has not promised or render any service in respect to cabin allotment and there is not deficiency in service of Ops rather a contract of both parties for allotment prior to final agreement signed by the OP. The contract of parties are not maintainable in u/s 2 (i) (d) C.P Act 1986.
O R D E R
After verification of records and all documents the Hon’ble Forum has came to a conclusion that the case is not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed and the OP has not liable to pay any Compensation or cost regarding the matters for mental agony.
Order pronounced in the Open Court of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 12th day of July 2016.
