DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                                 C.C.NO. 72 OF 2022

                                                                                              Date of Filing  : 16.11.2022

                                  Date of Order :  31.01.2023

Sri Rabi Chandra Rana,

S/o Bandhaba Rana,

At/PO- Bandhaguda, via Phiringia

District- Kandhamal, 762011.              …………………….. Complainant.

Versus.

Sri Akshya Rana,

S/o Kasinath Rana

Village: Nahana Gaom

PO: Phiringia,

District-Kandhamal                          …………………….. Opp. Parties.

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                             Sri Sudhakar Senapothi          - Member.

For the Complainant: Self

For O.P.                    :

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Sudhakar Senapothi, Member

            Complainant Rabi Chandra Rana has filed this case U/S 35 of CP Act of 2019 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party for non-payment of Rs. 36,000/- in spite of repeated approaches and praying therein for a direction to the Opposite Party to refund a sum of Rs. 36,000/- with interest along with cost and compensation of 15, 000/-.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant had executed two works with the Opposite Party. In both the works, he is entitled to get Rs. 86,000/- from the Opposite Party and as he did not pay, he reported the matter to BDO, Phiringia which was solved with the condition that the Opposite Party will pay the money to the complainant in two equal installments. Accordingly, the Opposite Party paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 10.09.2020 but, has not paid Rs. 36,000/- till filling of the case in spite of several approaches for which he has filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
2. Notice was issued to the Opposite Party from this Commission in his correct address by Registered Post with AD with postage pre-paid. The Opposite Party in spite of service of notice neither appeared nor raised any objection to the allegations and claims made by the complainant. It is settled principles of Law that whether the Opposite Party does not raise any objection to the allegations raised against him, it is deemed to have admitted by him. In this instant case in spite of notice served on the Opposite Party, he neither appeared nor challenged the allegation raised against him in any manner.
3. It is seen from the documents on record that the complainant has issued a letter by Registered Post to the Opposite Party requesting him to pay the amount of Rs. 36,000/-. The complainant has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit which remains uncontroverted. As the Opposite Party did not pay the amount as agreed in the stipulated period and thereafter on repeated approaches, it amounts to deficiency in service and harassment and hence the order.

                                                                                          ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed expartee against the Opposite Party for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the petitioner. The Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 36, 000/- with interest @ 12 % per annum with effect from 10.09.2020 till it is actually paid to the complainant. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, harassment and cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

                                                    Computerized & corrected by me.

         I Agree

     PRESIDENT                                                                     MEMBER

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 31st day of January 2023 in the presence of the parties.      

     PRESIDENT                                                                     MEMBER