Pratyush Ranjan Panigrahi - Complainant(s)


State of Odisha, Represented by Collector,Nuapada - Opp.Party(s)


03 Feb 2024


Complaint Case No. CC/23/2018
( Date of Filing : 08 Nov 2018 )
1. Pratyush Ranjan Panigrahi
At-BrahminPada, Village-Komna, Dist-Nuapada
1. State of Odisha, Represented by Collector,Nuapada
2. Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Nuapada
At/Po-Khariar, Dist-Nuapada
 HON'BLE MR. Purna Chandra Mishra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sudhakar Senapothi MEMBER
Dated : 03 Feb 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Sri Sudhakar Senapati    - Member.         

Complainant Pratush Ranjan Panigrahi has filed this case u/s 12 of CP Act-1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not properly supervising the construction of the road and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to award compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the inconvenience suffered by him due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties.

  1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant had been to Nuapada Railway Station along with his father on 04.11.2018 to enquire about the train for his return journey to his college. On the way back to Nuapada Town, he felt suffocated due to dust generated by the plying of vehicles in the road which was under construction. Because of lot of pot holes on the road, the petitioner felt uncomfortable to drive his scooty which caused muscular pain and headache. As a heavy truck  passed from the opposite side and he gave side because of the poor maintenance, his scooty collided with a stone block as the road was uneven and full of construction materials as a result of which he fell down sustaining minor injury on his body. Therefore, he has filed this case before this Commission alleging deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.
  2.           Notice was issued to the Opposite Parties by Registered Post which were duly served on them. In spite of noticed served on the Opposite Parties, they did not appear nor filed written statements. Therefore, the Opposite Parties were set ex-parte and this Commission proceeded to dispose of the case on its own merit.
  3.           The complainant has impleaded Collector, Nuapada as OP No. 1. The Collector is no way connected with the supervision of the construction works undertaken by the Public Works Department. So, he has no liability to discharge nor the Collector has been paid any consideration to render any service for this purpose.
  4.           Now comes to the question whether the OP No. 2 has caused deficiency in service to the complainant in any manner or not?

The OP No. 2 collects supervision charge to supervise the works to be made through Contractors under their department which is clearly encoded in the PWD Code. Since a charge has been paid for supervision of the work to be executed by the contractors, it casts a duty on him to properly supervise that when the construction work is going on, no inconvenience is caused to the public to the flow of vehicles and maintenance of environment in proper condition to make it pollution free.

  1.           The complainant has alleged that while he was returning from Nuapada Railway Station, he felt suffocated due to heavy dust generated by plying of the vehicles and there were lot of pot holes on the road and the construction materials were stacked on the road thereby creating narrow passage to the free flow of the vehicles leading to his collusion and ultimately leading to minor body injury due to negligence of the OP No. 2.
  2.           This aspect of the allegation is not challenged by the OP No. 2 in any manner and it is deemed that he has admitted the allegations raised against him. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the OP No. 2 has failed to properly supervise the works and safety norms which is required to be observed during the construction/repair of roads and is liable for causing deficiency in service to the petitioner and the public at large.
  3.           As a case of deficiency in service is made out against the OP No. 2, he is liable to compensate the petitioner for the inconvenience caused to him and hence the order.


The complaint petition is allowed expartee against the OP No. 2 and dismissed against other OP No. 1. The OP No. 2 is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The OP No. 2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to the complainant for causing deficiency in service and harassment. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of order failing which the order as to cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till its compliance.      

[HON'BLE MR. Purna Chandra Mishra]
[HON'BLE MR. Sudhakar Senapothi]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.