Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/25/2016

Sri Prafulla Kumar Nath Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer, OLIC - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No-25/2016

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

 

Sri Prafulla Kumar Nath Sharma aged about 68 years

Resident of Gourpali, PS:- Jamankira,

Dist:- Sambalpur                                                           …..Complainant

 

Vrs.

Executive Engineer, OLIC,

Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur..….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant      :-Self
2.  For the O.P.;-                  :- B.P.Sahoo Adv. And others

 

DATE OF HEARING :04.07.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT :20.07.2022

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT.

1. The case of the complainant is that the complainant applied to avail the benefits of Biju Krushak Vikash Yojana on 7.1.2013 to the O.P. The O.P issued verbal  instruction to deposit Rs.20,000/- , Rs.1,000/- for sounding test and Rs.19,000/- for other accessories  The complainant deposited on 3.4.2014.The pump set was installed and electrified on 17.11.2014. Due to Bore-well collapse the sub-mersible pump and fitting remained unrecovered. It was reported to the Opp.Party though its J.E.,OLIC, Kuchinda on 18.11.2014. The J.E assured the complainant to restore the service before Khariff-2015 in a meeting in Jamankira office. The Collector , Sambalpur was also reported on 13.3.2015. After repeated request also the O.P did not show any interest .Relying on verbal assurance of J.E.,OLIC the complainant sowed three acres of paddy which was damaged due to draught. The complainant sustained financial loss of Rs.60,000/-.

Being aggrieved Complainant filed this complaint.

2. The O.P after appearance sub mitted his version and stated that the complainant  is not a “Consumer, but beneficiary. The allegations are not true fabricated and mis-representation of facts. The O.P. followed Odisha Water Resources Scheme, 2010 and procedures. After installation and supply of energy, initial testing was done in presence of technical staff. The Complainant has not produced any substantial evidence of collapse. Other allegations are denied. There is no any deficiency in service.
3. Perused the documents filed by both the parties. The Complainant entered in agreement  with WESCO for power supply on 20.08.2014. The amount deposited by the Complainant has not been denied by the O.P., further it is supported by united Bank of India D,.D dated 03.04.2014 and receipt of Rs. 19,086/-

The scheme is lunched by Govt. of Odisha for exploitation of ground water to augment irrigation potential in hard rocks area. The contribution of the beneficiary is 10% of the project cost subject to maximum of Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 1000/- for scrutiny of application which is non-refundable and Rs. 19,000/- after successful completion of drilling and testing bore-well. After energy supply the bore-well will be handed over to the beneficiary for future operation and maintenance. Any cultivator minimum one acre of cultivable non irrigated land within the layout of 5 acres is eligible for the scheme. Once a site gets pre-feasibility report, the beneficiary will deposit Rs. 1000/- as initial deposit. The sounding test, construction of bore-well, yield test, electricity line and installation are to be done by engaging private agencies through open tender.

            Cost of sounding will be paid to the drilling Agency by the State government. Pre-feasibility survey in with OLIC and the O.P. has to prepare detail report and it will be approved by District Level technical Appraisal Committee.

            The O.P. vide letter dated 27.02.2017 informed his advocate that restoration work is a team work and it requires time to obtain permission from authority. The superintending Engineer(NC) vide letter dated 21.12.2016 sort for approval from MD, OLIC ltd. Bhubaneswar to take up the rectification of 363 nos. of borewell out of the 7% generated funds.

            In letter No. 5103 dated 14.12.2016 the name of Complainant in serial No.5 found place.

            Pudmanabha sahu, J.E. filed an affidavit dated 26.02.2018 stating that technical personal were deputed to repai and restore the source but they could not do so. The condition of the borewell and pump set was drown and damage.

            From the aforesaid facts and pleading of parties, it is clear that the installation of bore-well project of Complainant was a failure and after restoration  work also it could not be restored and the Complainant sustained loss.

After examination the following issues are framed:

103606587.  

1. Is the Complainant not a consumer of the O.P.?
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No. 1 Is the Complainant not a consumer of the O.P.?

           The scheme submitted by the O.P. reflects that the Complainant is a beneficiary of the scheme but has to contribute 10% of the project cost. The O.P. has not denied the payment details. On 03.04.2014 the Complainant deposited Rs. 19,000/-. The project guidelines also say about scrutiny of application charge Rs. 1000/- Rs. 19,000/- to-wards testing and drilling of bore well. The above amount has been received by the O.P. As the Complainant has paid the charges i.e. consideration and the O.P. admitted, the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P. The Complainant has got the benefit from govt. as a beneficiary but as 10% project cost is paid, he is a consumer. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

Issue No.2 What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

           As the project is completely damaged the Complainant has sustained loss and it is not denied by the O.P. The O.P. has also taken steps for restoration but failed.

           The O.P. engages expert team for installation of bore-well in hard rock area of the farmers. After being satisfied with the sound test(VES) the drilling work was completed but later it collapsed. It proves the deficiency of the O.P. in service. Properly sounding test has not made, as a result the selection of hard rock area became not proper and the result is collapsing of bore-well. Accordingly the O.P. is liable to pay the compensation.

           The Complainant has not filed any report of agriculture officer about the crop damage nor report of the revenue Inspector. Due to failure of the bore-well no doubt the Complainant sustained heavy loss but not submitted the details of land particulars.   

           Accordingly it is ordered:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed partly on contest against the O.P. The O.P is directed to install a bore-well within one month of this order in the agricultural land of the Complainant failing which the O.P is liable to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards installation charges and for deficiency in service, Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and towards harassment Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant . All the amount will carry 7% interest w.e.f 03.04.2014 till realisation. In case of non-compliance within the specified period the amount will carry 12% interest till realisation w.e.f 03.04.2014

Order pronounced in open court on this 20^th July 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.