DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                             C.C NO.13 OF 2016

Present:   Sri Rabindranath Mishra       - President.

                  Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member.

                 Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy     - Member.

Manoranjan Behera, aged-44 years

S/O: Late Satya Behera Village; Rujangi( Lengansahi)

PO: Pakanagam.PS: Sadar, Phulbani Dist: kandhamal              ………………………….. Complainant.

                          Versus .

1.The Executive Engineer,

 Irrigation Division, Boudh. At/PO: Boudh Dist: Boudh

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Pilasalki Irrigation Sub- Division, AT/PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal

3.Er-Diptiranjan Panda.

Ex-S.D.O.,Irrigation Division, Phulbani, At present working at Irrigation

Division, Khurdha. At/PO/PS: Khurdha. Dist: Khurdha.

4.Ex-Junior Engineer Sri Jeeban Kumar Mallick ,Phulbani Irrigation Division

 At present working as J.E, Telengiri Head works Division

At: Ambaguda PO/PS: Ambaguda Dist: Koraput               ……………………………..  OPP. Parties

For the Complainant: Sri R.K Pradhan, Advocate,Phulbani

For the OPP. Parties:  For O.P No.1 to 3 - Self

                                           For O.P No.-4 - None

Date of Order: 31-12-2016

                                                                                                O R D E R

                                   The case of the Complainant in short is that in the year 2012 during June to December he constructed one culvert (33’X6”) of Bandhasahi Main Canel (5.5.Km) from village Ghodagadu to Rujangi ,Desilling of earth about 2.5 Km in the Sub-canel and cleaned 42 numbers of well (CD) as per the instruction of O.P No.3 and 4 due to the emergency work of the Department in the rainy season. He spent Rs. 300,000/- for the purpose but the O.P No.4 failed to estimate the same work in spite of his request and written application. Then he reported the matter to O.P No.1 on 19-07-2014, 24-06-2015

                                                                                                         -2-

and 09-09-2015 through O.P No.2 but no action was taken by the O.Ps. On 18-12-2014 the O.P No.4 had given an undertaking regarding the construction executed by the Complainant. Subsequently the O.P No.3 and 4 were transferred from Phulbani without taking any steps which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Being an unemployed person he started his career as a contractor and invested Rs. 300,000/- for the work of the Department and harassed by the O.Ps for which he is facing irreparable loss and injury. Hence, he has filed this complaint against the O.Ps to pay Rs. 300,000/- with 12 % interest per annum since January 2013. He has also claimed compensation of Rs. 1, 00000/- from the O.ps along with Rs. 10,000/- for litigation fees.

                                   The case of O.P No.1 as per his version is that nothing regarding the execution of work by the Complainant in the year 2012 is available in his office. As no papers such as estimate, agreement and work order are available, no action has been taken by his office. The junior Engineer, Sub Devisional Officer and the Executive Engineer do not exhibit any work note regarding execution of work by Sri Manoranjan Behera. The Agreement has been made between Sri Manoranjan Behera and Sri Jeevan Kumar Mallick without knowledge of his office which seems to be fabricated one. The Complainant has not executed any agreement with the- then Executive Engineer. Hence, no harassment has been made as claimed.

                                   The case of the O.P No.2 as per his version  is that as per codal provision the O.P No.3 and 4 are not competent to allow any work to any body and O.P No.1 is competent for the same . The work note and charge paper of the then S.D.O and J.E do not exhibit about any execution of work by Sri Manoranjan Behera.The undertaking has been given by Sri Jevan Kumar Mallick at latter stage without the knowledge of Superior authorities .The Complainant has not executed any agreement with the Executive Engineer , Boudh, Irrigation Division and no harassment has been made by them.

                                   The case of the O.P No.3 as per his version is that the O.P no.1 has empowered to issue work order to start the execution of work, but there was no work order issued to the Complainant to start the work. He never instructed to the Complainant to execute the said work as the same is beyond his official capacity. Hence, this complaint is false and fabricated. No harassment has been made by the O.Ps and they have no knowledge regarding any execution of work for which the complaint may be dismissed.

                                   The O.P No.4 was set exparte on 02-06-2016. He is not interested to contest the case in spite of getting the notice.

                                   During course of hearing five witnesses were examined on behalf of the Complainant including himself. Exhibit-1 to 5 were marked on behalf of the Complainant. None was examined on behalf of the O.Ps .They have not filed any affidavit in token of their evidence. We have gone through the complaint petition, version filed by the O.Ps separately, documents filed by both the parties in

                                                                                                         -3-

support of their case and the affidavits filed by the Complainant and his witnesses. We have gone through the depositions and all exhibits .We have carefully gone through the Exhibit-4, the undertaking given by the O.P No.4 on 18-12-2014 wherein it is admitted by him that the Complainant constructed the work of the department in the year 2012 during the months of June to December. It is also pointed in the said undertaking of O.P no.4 that due to their transfer the Complainant was deprived of from getting his dues from the department. Exhibit-1, Exhibit-2 and Exhibit 3 are 3 letters communicated to O.P No.1 by the Complainant through O.P No.2 regarding his payment of Rs. 300,000/-, but no reply was given by them to the Complainant .From the evidence given by the witnesses of the Complainant it is ascertained that the Complainant has constructed the work as mentioned in the complaint petition which very well corroborated the case of the Complainant. The O.P No.4 has admitted that the work of the Complainant was urgent in nature in the rainy season. The O.ps failed to prove that this undertaking is false and fabricated. The Complainant is suffering since last 4 years due to latches of the departmental authorities .The O.Ps were not interested to adduce any evidence and they are not attending in the case since the date of filing of the version. No definite opinion was given by any of the O.ps regarding existence of the work in the worksite. When the Complainant has invested Rs. 300.000/- for a departmental work in the reany season which is urgent in nature, the Complainant is liable to get his payment for the same. Hence, the petition filed by the Complainant is allowed on contest against the O.P No.1,2 &3 and exparte against the O.P No.4 .

                                     All the O.P s are jointly directed to pay Rs.300, 000/-to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of failure the Complainant shall be entitled to get 10% interest per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e 31-03-2016 till the date of payment. The O.P No.1 is at liberty to visit the worksite and to take necessary steps to realise the same amount from the O.P No.4 as he has failed to submit any estimate as per provision.

                                   With the above direction the C.C is disposed of .Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date.

          MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT.