MANAGING DIRECTOR, ORISSA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. vs RUPA SWAIN

THE Agro Industries Corporation is in appeal against the order of the District Forum, Cuttack awarding Rs. 15,000/- compensation for loss sustained by the complainant with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. Complainant''s case is, he deposited an amount of Rs. 12,996/- with the O.P. No. 5, the appellant for setting of a shallow-point tubewell under the "Krusak Kalyan Yojana" floated by the State. This was to be executed through the District Rural Development Agency, Cuttack. THE deposit of the amount was 50 per cent of the project costs and the project was to be implemented through the appellant-O.P. No. 5. THE necessary test for a successful digging of the well was done. THE scheme mentioned that the tubewell so installed must discharge minimum 2000 gallons of water per hour for agriculture purpose. THE Project Director, D.R.D.A. sanctioned the project and the same was to be installed on the plot of the complainant in village Nemalo under Salipur Police Station and the appellant took up the work. THE work was undertaken through the contractor after the complainant deposited 50 per cent of the amount under the project. After this was set-up and the complainant had constructed the pump house etc. at his cost, it was found that the project was a failure and it discharged very low volume of water and in fact it totally became defunct from 15.3.1996. For this failure of the project complainant sustained damage since he could not irrigate his vegetable crops. He complained to the appellant on 15.4.1996. THE defect could not be rectified by the appellant. When the appellant found that the project is a failure one, a second test bore was done on June, 1996 over the same land but close to the first one. THE same also failed. Complainant claims for (sic) crop loss of Rs. 15,000/- besides the construction of the pump house for the purpose. He claims Rs. 1,44,896/-.

THE O.Ps. filed written version denying their liablity. THEy pleaded that during the execution of the boring work, the work was duly supervised by all experts. THEy admitted the construction of the pump house by the complainant. THEy denied the fact that the tubewell was a defective one and it was discharging very low volume of water. It is further their case that on receiving the complaint, the appellant also investigated the tubewell through their technical hands and the contractor and found no defect except minor defect of air-leakage and defect in pipe joint which was repaired and after that the appellant took up a trial in presence of the party and all through the tubewell gave satisfactory discharge of water. Giving explanation to the second bore near the place of the tube-well, they submitted to have done so but for the satisfaction of the complainant alone but ultimately that was abandoned because of hard stone (sic) coming on the way after digging up to 9 feet. The District Forum has discussed the case in detail. It was given the reasons in allowing the claim of the complainant. Firstly it held that the appellant could not produce any material to show that in fact either through their own agency or even through the agencies of the D.R.D.A. which sponsored the project they found out for themselves whether the tube-well was discharging the required gallons of water. The District Forum said they totally failed to prove this. Infact no document was placed before us to indicate that. Secondly, the appellant were unable to produce the technical report either during the installation of the project or after the project was completed. The District Forum mentions that time was given to them to produce the same, but they did not produce. We find infact they did not produce any witnesses to prove the positive aspect of the case that infact the project was lifting the prescribed volume of water. It was an assertion in the written statement but not proved. The District Forum has rightly awarded the amount against the appellant. The Forum did not commit any mistake in relying on the affidavits of the witnesses produced from the side of the complainant. The impugned order indicates that the complainant was not prepared to call the witnesses for the cross-examination by the appellant at his expenses. In fact if the appellant wanted to take benefit of any cross-examination of the witnesses for the complainant, law says they should have called the witnesses from their side at their cross. The impugned order indicates they abstained from the proceeding half way.

On hearing both parties and going through the documents on record, and the impugned order we do not find any infirmity in the order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. No cost. The order be complied within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. Appeal dismissed.