IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

CD Case No- 18 /2018.

Present-        Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan,

Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

Hari Naik,

S/O-Late Sahen Naik,

At-Rajamunda,

P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                                               ...Complainant

                                                 Versus

The Executive Officer,

Deogarh Municipality,

P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                                               …Opposite Party.

             For the Complainant                   : -        Nemo.

            For the Opp.Party-                       :-         K.G Deb, Advocate.

            DATE OF HEARING: 27.08.2018, DATE OF ORDER: 15.09.2018.

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President:- Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P who has applied for a dwelling house under “Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana”  which is meant for persons of BPL category, a scheme from Odisha Urban Housing Mission(OUHM) under Housing & Urban Development Department. After receiving work order from the O.P, he completed construction work up to plinth level and requested the O.P to release the money as prescribed by the Govt. for the same. As the O.P has not released the same in favour of the Complainant even after inspection conducted by the M.E and J.E and submission of report with the concerned authority, the Complainant constraint to seek relief from this Forum. But during pendency of this case, on dtd. 28.06.2018 the O.P has released Rs. 40,000/- towards the first phase of construction instead of Rs. 70,000/- which reflected in the work order. But according to the O.P, the payment structure has been revised by the Central Govt. vide Notification No-20 dt.04.01.2018 which is communicated to the O.P afterwards and according to the revised order he has made the payment of Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant. Again the O.P claims that the Complainant

is not a Consumer but a Beneficiary in the above said scheme. According to the O.P, as the Complainant does not come in the purview of Consumer, he has not committed any “Deficiency in Service”.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.P has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?           

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant has availed services from the O.P though it is a subsidized scheme. After completion of construct the house up to plinth level & even after inspection conducted by the M.E and J.E and submission of report with the concerned authority, the amount was not released but harassed the Complainant. The O.P has made the payment for 1^st phase on dtd. 28.06.2018 only after receiving notice from this Forum during pendency of this case. As per the guideline prescribed in the work order “the beneficiary has to complete the construction up to plinth level within 90 days of receiving the work order failing which the work order will be cancelled”. Again as the O.P has made the said payment to the Complainant it presumes that he has completed the construction within the stipulated period for which he is eligible to receive payment of Rs 70,000/- according to the work order issue to him. But the O.P neglected the matter and intentionally delayed in making payment. In due course the payment structure has been revised by the central Govt. as a result of which the amount is revised to Rs.40,000/- in place of Rs.70,000/-. Again as per the notification for revised payment structure, it is contended that “payment to the beneficiaries will be released as per the previous structure, if the payment has already been initiated. The new payment shall be implemented from 15^th January 2018”. So, if the O.P would have made the payment timely to the beneficiary soon after the completion of the inspection, the Complainant could have received Rs.70,000/- as per previous structure. But due to unnecessary delay and negligence caused by the O.P, the Complainant has to receive lesser amount than proposed amount. The O.P made the payment of Rs. 40,000/- ignoring the guidelines of work order given to the Complainant much prior to revised order. Due to the oblique intention of the O.P, the Complaint being a weaker section of the society became harassed both financially and mentally. Also the O.P caused hindrance to the smooth operation of the Central Govt. Scheme as well as lessens the trust of public on such schemes. As the O.P has not provided proper services to the Complainant, hence he has Committed “Deficiency in Service” U/S-2(1)(O) of Consumer Protection Act-1986 to the Complainant by

                                                               ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation, Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) for mental pain and agony and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the Complainant within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.    

            Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 15^th day of September, 2018 under my hand and seal of this forum.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,                                            I  agree,                                          

MEMBER.(W)                                 MEMBER.                                     PRESIDENT.

                                                Dictated and Corrected

                                                                by me.

                                                            PRESIDENT.