Orissa

Rayagada

CC/374/2015

Sri B.Jyothi Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Project Administrator I.T.D.A - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

C.C. Case  No.374/ 2015

              P R E S E N T .

            Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

            Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                      Member

Smt.B.Jyothi Rao, W/o B.Kantha Rao, Resident of Hathipathar Road( Trinath Mandir Line) Raniguda Farm, Po/Ps/ Dist. Rayagada.

                          ……..Complainant

                                                Versus

            The Project Administrator, I.T.D.A, Gunupur, Dist. Rayagada. 

                                …….….Opp.Party

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant:   In person

For the O.P : Sri Rajendra Prasad Padhi,AGP,Gunupur.

                                                     JUDGMENT

 

The brief facts of the case is that the complainant has under taken the construction work of Class room at Kujendri High School, Ramanaguda for construction of 100 seated S.T.Girls Hostel at Bharsing Residential Seva Ashram,Gunupur block  and construction of S.T. Girls hostel building at Nilamguda under Ramanaguda block. In order to execute the said work the OP has demanded the security by way of “F.D.R as a guarantee and after construction of the said work and completion of the final measurement and certificate of the execution, the said money will be released but the OP has not yet returned the said receipts   kept as security with the OP and   not released the same till today. Notice of request has been served on the OP but  not given any reply. The work entrusted to the complainant is done in time and delivered the building  and there is no defect or anything else is noticed in the above work and   even though more than five years have been completed after such execution of the work, the OP is duty bound to refund the  security deposits made in the account.  Hence  prayed to direct the Op to delivery back the said security  and   for causing financial loss   award compensation with cost of litigation. Hence, this case.

On being notice the O.P appeared and filed written version denying the allegations of the complainant. It is submitted by the O.p that the complaint petition is not maintainable under the consumer protection act since there is no hiring of service on payment of cost by the petitioner to the opposite party.   All the three tender works though executed the agreement by the petitioner  but she became deaf ear in spite of several notices issued by the Opposite Party and personal approaches by the officials of the Opposite Party. The petitioner did not took the matter seriously for that the ST & SC students suffered a lot and the cost of project has been increased time to time as such the State has put in financial loss. The Opposite Party and the State Government  became worried for non construction of all the  three tender  works and at last on 07.03.2012  the Collector, Rayagada has confiscated the  EMD ,Initial Security Deposit and Security Deposit and made her block listed for suffering of ST  & SC students and financial loss to the State Government.  In addition to that the Collector, Rayagada on behalf  of the State Govt. had drawn proceedings against the Asst. Engineer and Junior Engineer of ITDA, Gunupur for abnormal delay of executing the work by the petitioner. As such the aforesaid amount has been confiscated to the State Treasury as per the order of the Govt. and the petitioner is not entitled for any refund of money from the Government. Hence, the complaint petition be dismissed  with cost.

                                                                           FINDINGS

      We perused the complaint petition and written version filed by the parties and also verified the documents  and heard argument from both the parties. In reply to the allegations of the complainant, the O.p has stated that all the three tender works though executed the agreement by the petitioner  but she became deaf ear in spite of several notices issued by the Opposite Party and personal approaches by the officials of the Opposite Party and the petitioner did not took the matter seriously for that the ST & SC students suffered a lot and the cost of project has been increased time to time as such the State has put in financial loss and at last on 07.03.2012  the Collector, Rayagada has confiscated the  EMD ,Initial Security Deposit and Security Deposit and made her block listed for suffering of ST  & SC students and financial loss to the State Government.  In addition to that the Collector, Rayagada on behalf  of the State Govt. had drawn proceedings against the Asst. Engineer and Junior Engineer of ITDA, Gunupur for abnormal delay of executing the work by the petitioner. As such the aforesaid amount has been confiscated to the State Treasury as per the order of the Govt. and the petitioner is not entitled for any refund of money from the Government.

We heard both the parties. The Ops have not filed a single piece of document to substantiate their case , so we can not believe the mere  submissions of the Ops regarding non payment of SD amount. Hence we found deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and  due to callous attitude of the Ops  the complainant could not get his legitimate claim and took  shelter of this forum.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vrs. M.K.Gupta reported in 1994(1) SCC 243 held that The authority empowered to function  under  a statute while exercising power discharges public duty it  has  to act to observe general welfare in common good  in ordinary matters a common man who was neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it  erodes the credibility in the system where it is found that exercise of discretion was malafide and the complainant is entitled to  get compensation for mental and physical harassment and that the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover.  

                        Again in para-10 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that,

                        “ Harassment of a common man by public authority is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is for more grievous crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in officers in stead of standing against it therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authority not only compensates the individual satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result to improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook.”

                        In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the O.P has committed deficiency in service   by not paying the legitimate claim  to the complainant under the provisions and  hence the complaint is allowed in part  in favour of  the complainant and in our considered opinion the complainant is entitled to get relief. Hence it is ordered.

  ORDER

                        The O.P- Project Administrator, I.T.D.A, Gunupur is  directed to pay the total  amount  of S.D to the complainant  with 12% interest  and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and harassment  and Rs.1000/- towards  cost of  litigation to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order by invoking Section  25 & 27 of the C.P.Act,1986.

Pronounced in  open forum today on this 30

^th    day of November,2016      under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A Copy of  this orders  as per the statutory requirements,  be supplied to the parties  free of charge.

 

 

Member                                                                                 President