DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C NO.10 OF 2016
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member.
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy - Member.
Balaram Pradhan, aged – 38 years
S/O: Trilochan Pradhan AT: Tangurukumpa PO: Chatrnga
PS: Harabhanga Dist: BoudhAt Present at – Masterpada
PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal ………………………….. Complainant.
Versus .
1. General Manager,
State Bank of India, Phulbani
At- Main Road, Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal
2. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation
Boudh At/PO/PS: Boudh Dist: Boudh.
…………………………….. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri B.B Pradhan, Advocate and his Associates
For the OPP. Parties: For O.P No.1: M.V.K. Rao Advocate, Phulbani
For O.P No.2: Govt Pleader, Boudh.
Date of order : 31-03-2017.
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in brief is that the O.P No.2 invited a tender for construction of check dams, construction of office buildings and improvement to strom water drain in Boudh NAC for 29 works. Accordingly the Complainant went to the bank of O.P No.1 and deposited Rs. 30,000/- for 5 works @ Rs. 6,000/- for each work. He deposited 5 nos of vouchers for bank drafts payable at Executive Engineer Minor irrigation Boudh Division, but the O.P No.1 mischievously and intentionally granted 5 nos of Bank drafts payable in favor of Executive Engineer Minor irrigation, Phulbani division. When the Complainant filed the same before O.P No.2 all the tender papers were rejected by him, for which the Complainant sustained loss of Rupees more than 5 lakhs. The Complainant approached the O.P No.1 and applied for R.T.I immediately. The O.P No.1 gets back all the bank drafts from O.P No.2 in order to save his skin. So the O.P No.1 neglected to give proper service to the Complainant. The O.P No.2 also returned bank drafts directly to O.P No. 1 instead of the Complainant and did not provide proper service. Hence the Complainant had filed this complaint against the O.Ps for a direction to O.P No.1 to pay the cost of drafts it is Rs. 30,000/- with drafts
-2-
charge amounting Rs. 300/- with 6 % annum interest and to pay compensation of Rs. 500,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss . He also claims Rs. 56,000/- towards advocate fees.
The case of O.P No.1 as per his version is that as per the documents filed by the Complainant it is ascertained that in the draft application the place ‘payable at which branch’remains blank and the draft has been issued as it is submitted at Phulbani Branch. On routine verification the passing authority found that the draft was in favor of M.I Division,Boudh. Immediately the matter has been intimated to the Executive Engineer MI Division Boudh who has collected the draft amount before consideration of tender papers. So, the allegations of the Complainant that the tender papers were rejected due to non receipt of draft amount are not true. It is ascertained from the office of O .P No.2 that the tender papers of the Complainant were rejected as the Complainant has not deposited the additional amount of VAT@ 5% i.e Rs. 300/- for each tender paper. As per condition of the tender papers the EMD has been remitted to the revenue Department, Government of Odisha.
The further case of the O.P No.1 is that there is no cause of action against the O.P No.1 and this complaint is not maintainable as the dispute relates to civil dispute and this Honorable Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter, for which the complaint may be dismissed against O.P No.1.
The case of O.P no.2 as per his version is that the Complainant had applied for 5 nos of works and the cost of tender papers are Rs. 6,000/- each. He had submitted the EMD in the form of Bank draft payable in favor of Executive Engineer MI Division, Phulbani. However the said drafts were honored by the O.P No.2 considering the written request made by the O.P No.1 vide his letter No. 55/126 dt. 01-12-2015. But the tender papers were rejected on the ground that the O.P No.2 had not deposited the additional amount of VAT@5% i.e Rs. 300/- for each tender paper. So the non- refundable EMD has been remitted to Revenue department of Government of Odisha as per terms and conditions. Hence the allegation against the O.P No.2 is false and imaginary.
The further case of the O.P No.2 is that there is no cause of action against the O.P No.2 and the dispute is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act and this dispute is a civil matter and the Honorable Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same for which the Complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P No.2
During course of hearing the Complainant has filed an affidavit in token of his evidence and he was examined and cross examined. Exit-1 to Exit-5 were marked on behalf of the Complainant as far as his documents are concerned. Exit –A was also marked on behalf of O.P No.2. The O.P no.2 has also filed his written argument through Government pleader of Boudh
We have gone through the Complaint petition, the version filed by the O.Ps separately , the affidavit filed by the Complainant and his deposition, the documents filed by both parties, all exhibits and the written argument submitted by O.P no.2 carefully . We have also heard the learned counsel of both the parties.
From the pleadings of both parties the main point of consideration in this complaint is that Whether the O.Ps have committed any negligence in their duty for which the Complainant is suffering both mentally and financially and Whether he is entitled to get any relief as claimed by him?
-3-
The main allegation of the Complainant as per his complaint is that the O.P No.2 rejected his tender papers as the drafts were granted by O.P No.1 in favor of Executive Engineer , Minor Irrigation Division , Phulbani instead of Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Boudh. As per the version filed by both the parties it is pointed out that the tender papers of the Complainant were rejected by O.P No.2 as he had not deposited the additional amount of VAT as per the provision which amounts to Rs. 300/- for each tender papers . It is seen from the cross examination of the Complainant, ( by O.P No.2 ) that he admitted the fact that his tender paper was rejected by O.P No.2 due to nonpayment of VAT. So, the Complainant failed to establish that the O. Ps have committed any negligence in their duty for which he is suffering both mentally and financially. Accordingly, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him. Hence, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed being devoid of merit but he is at liberty to claim his deposited amount from the concerned authorities as per provision of law.
The C.C is disposed of today. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
