DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No. 8 of 2014
Lokanath Bharasagar, S/o. Paradesi Bharasagar, aged about 42 years, R/o. village – Dhelei, P.O. Chadeipank, P.S. Ullunda, District – Subarnapur.
………… Complainant
Vrs.
1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ullunda Branch (09660), At/P.O./P.S. Ullunda, District - Subarnapur
2. The Executive Engineer, Bolangir Irrigation Division, At/P.O./P.S./District – Bolangir
…… Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri R. Agrawal
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 …………. Sri B.C.Panda
Advocate (G.P.) for the O.P. No.2 …………. Sri B.K.Dash
Present
1. Sri S.C.Nayak, President
2. Smt. S.Mishra Lady Member
Date of Judgment Dt.11.01.2016
J U D G M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
Lokanath Bharasagar, the complainant has filed this complaint case alleging deficiency of service against the B.M., S.B.I., Ullunda Branch and Executive Engineer, Bolangir Irrigation Division.
The case of the complainant is that he is an unemployed youth belonging to S.C. category. He is a “C” class P.W.D. contractor. On 4.12.2012 the O.P. No.2 made advertisement and invited bid for execution of different works. According to the tender call notice the interested bidder had to deposit security money in shape of Special Term Deposit which must be pledged in favour of O.P. No.2 alongwith bid document. The complainant decided to execute works vide SL. No.2 and 3 of said advertisement. He approached the bank of O.P. No.1 for issue of three S.T.D.R. of Rs. 5000/- each. The complainant filled up the form correctly and requested the O.P. No.1 to pledge the said S.T.D.Rs. in the name of O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.1 received the forms alongwith service charges from the complainant and issued three number of S.T.D.Rs. for Rs.5000/- each.
The complainant submitted the bid application alongwith S.T.D.Rs. before the O.P. No.2. The complainant alleges that he submitted the lowest bid and was entitled to get the contract. But to his utter surprise he came to know that his bid application has been rejected by the O.P. No.2 on the ground that the S.T.D.Rs. bears the name of Lokanath Behera, although the name of the complainant is Lokanath Bharasagar.
-: 2 :-
So the complainant alleges that due to wrong committed by the O.P. No.1 his bid application has been rejected. He further alleged that the O.P. No.1 has intentionally prepared the said S.T.D.Rs. in the name of Lokanath Behera instead of Lokanath Bharasagar. The complainant avers that S.B.I. is a Nationalised Bank dealing with monetary transactions. So it should have given satisfactory consumer service and prepare the document with utmost care. The complainant avers that the entire act of O.P. No.1 clearly shows that he is deficient in rendering service to him. He further avers that he must have got the contract work and earned Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only. The complainant alleges that he has lodged several complaints before the O.P. No.1 and higher authorities of the Bank. But they remained silent on this matter.
The O.P. No.1 and 2 has filed version. The O.P. No.1 averred that the complainant case is misconceived and the transaction in question has been done free of charge. He further avers that the complainant have accepted the S.T.D.Rs. without any protest and he was never the lowest bidder as revealed from the version of O.P. No.2. It is averred by him that the preparation of the title Behera instead of Bharasagar is not intentional, so he prays that the complaint case be dismissed.
The O.P. No.2 has filed version. It is admitted by him that an advertisement was published for execution of different works vide Tender Call Notice and the complainant applied for both works published vide Serial No.2 and 3 as per the advertisement. It is also admitted that the approximate tender value for both the work was Rs.15,84,008/-.
It is averred by this O.P. that the complainant has furnished the Bid application with the wrong S.T.D.Rs. mentioning his name as Lokanath Behera for which his bid application was rejected. Further this O.P. avers that for serial work No.2 the complainant was the fourth lowest and for serial No.3, he was the 3rd lowest tenderer in case his application was taken to be considered. He was never the lowest bidder. As such this O.P. prays that the complainant case be dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. From the pleadings of the parties and submissions made at the bar the seminal question that hinges for our consideration is :-
i. Has there been deficiency of service by the O.Ps. ?
That the S.T.D.Rs. was issued in the name of Lokanath Behera is not disputed. The complainant filled up the form in the name of Lokanath Bharasagar is also not disputed. Learned counsel Mr. B.C.Panda for O.P. No.1 submits that the complainant has paid nothing for the S.T.D.Rs. and as such he is not a consumer. We are afraid we are unable to accept this submission. To our query Mr.Panda replied that the complainant is an account holder of the Bank. So as an account holder he can safely be treated as consumer within the ambit of consumer Protection Act, 1986
-: 3 :-
Further the learned counsel submitted that the mistake was accidental and not intentional. He further submits that the complainant has accepted the S.T.D.Rs. without any protest. The mistake might have been accidental and the complainant might have received the S.T.D.Rs. without any protest. But that does not entitle the bank to issue S.T.D.Rs. in a wrong name. What would happen in the case of an illiterate consumer, who does not know reading or writing. Will he be in a position to verify the S.T.D.Rs. ?
The learned counsel Mr. Panda for O.P. No.1 further submits that the complainant was not the lowest bidder. Be it as it may since the bank issued the S.T.D.Rs. in a wrong name, there has been deficiency of service and it cannot escape from the liability by the jugglery of its pleading. Since the O.P. No.2 rejected the bid application due to the wrong name, we have not found any deficiency of service on his part.
Now it is to be seen to what relief the complainant is entitled. The complainant has claimed Rs.4,90,000/- as compensation and Rs.7000/- as cost of litigation. In the instant case even if the bid application of the complainant was admitted also, he would have not got the work , because the complainant was not the lowest bidder as revealed from the version of O.P. No.2. However fact remains that he has suffered mentally due to the wrong committed by the O.P. No.1. Taking an over all view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs.6000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation would meet the end of justice. We direct the O.P. No.1 to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant, we order accordingly.
O R D E R
It is hereby ordered as follows :-
1. The O.P. No.1 shall pay Rs.8000/- (Rupees Eight thousands) only to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt/production of this order.
Complaint is partly allowed.
Dated the 11th day of January 2016
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Smt. S.Mishra Sri S.C. Nayak
Lady Member President
Dt.11.01.2016 Dt.11.01.2016
