BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

Thursday, the 28^th day of January, 2016

CC.No.15 of 2015

Between:

Gulam Yousuf S/o Gulam Dasthagir,

Age 56 years, Occ: Contractor,

R/o H.No. 6-1-88, Upper Bazar,

Sangareddy, Medak District.……Complainant           

                   And

1. Chief Executive Engineer,

    Z.P., Sangareddy.

2. Executive Engineer, P.R. Sangareddy,

    Now residing at Andole.

3. Dy. Executive Engineer, P.R. Sangareddy,

    O/o Zilla Parishad, Medak District at Sangareddy.

                                                                                             ……Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 27.01.2016 in the presence of Sri P. Damodara Reddy, advocate for complainant, and Sri V. Hanumantha Reddy, Government Pleader for opposite parties nos. 1 to 3, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per se Sri Patil Vithal Rao, President)

                 The complainant has come up with the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by contending, in brief, that he being a civil contractor, attended and completed the work of special repairs to the Executive Engineers (RWS) residential quarter bearing no.3-4-26 at Sangareddy with an estimated costs of Rs.3.25 lakhs on 08.05.2012 and that due to site condition an additional amount of Rs.1.17 lakhs was required. His further case is that on the instructions of the opposite party no.2 he completed the said work also but did not receive the additional amount of Rs.1.25 lakhs so for. He has also contended that he attended the work of maintenance of ZPHS at Thogarpally village on 20.04.2012 with a sanctioned amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and that while the work was in progress, an additional amount of Rs.1.23 lakhs was required. After completion of the said work, as per the complainant, he was paid only Rs.1,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.1.23 lakhs remained unpaid. The complainant has also claimed that though he attended the work of providing pipe line for water supply to the ZPP staff quarters at the request of the opposite parties with an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- he did not receive the same despite several requests. Therefore he addressed a letter dated 07.05.2015 to the CEO, ZPP, Sangareddy for the total claim amount of Rs.3.4 lakhs but the same was neither sanctioned nor paid to him. For these reasons, the complainant has prayed to allow the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay the due amount of Rs.3.4 lakhs with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on the premise of deficiency in service.

2.           The opposite party no. 1 filed written version resisting the claim, on the grounds, in brief, that the complainant completed the work of residential quarters of executive engineers and the sanctioned amount of Rs.3.25 lakhs was already paid to him but the additional amount of Rs.1.25 lakhs towards maintenance of ZPHS at Thogarpally, which might have been incurred by him for the additional work, was only on oral instructions of the Executive engineer without any sanctioned proceedings of the opposite party no.1. In fact the sanctioned amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be paid to him by the Chief Engineer, P.R. Hyderabad. The further defense of the opposite party no.1 is that with regard to the work of pipe line for restoration of water supply to the ZPP staff quarter with an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was never sanctioned by the ZPP, so also no instructions were issued to the complainant to execute the said work. For all these reasons the complainant’s claim is baseless and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.            The opposite party no.3 opposed the claim and filed the written version on the grounds, in brief, that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that as such the case is not maintainable. Further, as per the opposite party no. 3, the sequence of works execution in the department is preparation of probable cost by the Assistant Engineer and Deputy Executive Engineer concerned and submitting the same to the Executive Engineer P.R. concerned for administrative sanction and that after obtaining the same preparation of detailed estimates by the Assistant Engineer and Depute Executive Engineer concerned for the prescribed amounts and that there after entrustment of works to the contractor as per the guidelines. After processing tenders or nominations proposals from competent authority, agreement will be entered with the contractor by the competent authority. The supplementary agreement will be made within sanctioned amount after approval of work estimate. The dispute, if any, arises it has to be referred to the Arbitrator i.e. the Superintendent Engineer, PR (Panchayat Raj) Circle, Medak. In the present case, as per the opposite party no. 3, the complainant never entered any supplementary agreement. As per the records the work of Executive Engineers quarters was completed by the complainant and the estimated cost of Rs.3.25 lakhs was paid to him as per concluded agreement on 21.09.2012. For the balance work of Rs.1.17 lakhs administrative sanction was not received by the CEO, ZP Medak from the Executive Engineer, PR Division Sangareddy. The work of special repairs to the ZPHS, Thogarpally village was entrusted to the complainant on nomination basis for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and on execution of the same the payment was made to him. His claim of Rs.1.23 lakhs for the additional work did not receive administrative sanction. With regard to the work of providing pipe line for restoration of water supply to the ZPP staff quarters with an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by the complainant was prepared on the oral instructions of the Executive Engineer PR Division, Sangareddy and submitted to him but so for the administrative sanction is not received and as such estimate is not technically sanctioned and no agreement is made by the department with the complainant. As the claim of the complainant with regard to the additional work/items is based without any due agreement, the same is not tenable.  For these reasons the opposite party no. 3 has prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4.                The opposite party no. 2 filed a memo and adopted the written version of the opposite party no. 3.

5.                The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit as PW.1 and relied on Exs.A1 to A4 in support of his claim. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence in defense.

                   The complainant has filed his written argument but the opposite parties did not file the same.

                   Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned Government pleader for the opposite parties.

6.                 Now the points for consideration are as under:

          1). Whether the complaint is maintainable?

          2). Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          3). If so, to what relief?

Point No.1:

7.              Admittedly the complainant has executed certain works on the directions of the opposite parties for which he was paid partly. The present complaint is for the balance amount. In view of the claim in issue it can be said that the complainant is a service provider and the department of the opposite parties is the consumer. In other words, the opposite parties paid the consideration and availed the services of the complainant. As per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “consumer” means any person who hires or avails any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised. Further, only a consumer can file a complaint as defined under clause.[c] of Section 2 of the Act, 1986 when suffers from deficiency in any respect of the hired or availed services and that such a person/consumer is termed as the “complainant” under clause [b] of Section 2 of the Act, 1986. Thus as the complainant, in the present case, has neither availed nor hired any services for consideration from the opposite parties, he cannot claim to be a consumer under the Act, 1986 and that as such the complaint is not maintainable.

Point no.2:

8.                The claim of the complainant is that he received a sum of Rs.3.25 lakhs for the work of special repairs to the Executive Engineer’s (RWS) residential quarter bearing no. 3-4-26 at Sangareddy and did not receive additional amount of Rs.1.17 lakhs for the additional works executed by him. Similarly he received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the work of maintenance of ZPHS at Thogarpally village from the opposite parties and the balance of Rs.1.23 lakhs is to be received. As per his further case, though he completed  work of providing pipeline for restoration of water supply to the ZPP staff quarters at a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- as required by the opposite parties, he was not paid the same. Thus the total claim is for a sum of Rs.3.40 lakhs. Exs.A1 to A3 are the copies of letters addressed by the opposite party no. 2 to the Chief Executive Officer, ZPP, Sangareddy for according administrative sanction for the said amounts with regard to the additional works. After waiting for quite some period, when the complainant did not receive the same, he addressed a letter Ex.A4 to the Chief Executive Officer, ZPP, Sangareddy on 07.05.2015 requesting to pay the same at the earliest.

9.           As per the opposite parties the amounts were paid to the complainant for the initial works of Rs.3.25 lakhs and one lakh as per the concluded agreement but the balance amount could not be paid as neither any supplementary agreement was entered into between the parties nor administrative sanction was received from the competent authority by them. Thus, technically speaking, there was no due sanction for the extra work executed by the complainant. The complainant did not dispute these facts. Even according to him he attended the said works only on oral instructions of the officers concerned.  In view of these facts, we hold that his claim is not maintainable in the eye of law and as such he is not entitled for the same. In this view of the matter, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is at liberty to approach a competent civil court for his claim against the opposite parties. The point is thus answered against the complainant.

Point no. 3:

10.            In view of the conclusions arrived at point nos. 1 & 2, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

11.              In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the, circumstances without costs.

                    Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 28^th day of January, 2016.

             Sd/-                                                        Sd/-          

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                            WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                                 For the opposite parties:-

      Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT 

Copy to:

1. The Complainant
2. The Opp.parties
3. Spare copy