IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 23rd day of September, 2010
Filed on 23.5.2009
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.193/09
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Maniamma 1. The Managing Director, KSRTC
Kalavelil House Thiruvananthapuram
Govindamuttom P.O.
Kayamkulam – 690 527 2. The Chief Engineer (P & CW)
KSRTC., Thiruvananthapuram
3. The Asst. Transport Officer
KSRTC., Kayamkulam
4. The General Manager
BSNL., Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Smt.Maniamma has filed this complaint before the Forum on 23.5.2009 alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. The allegations are as follows:- In order to set up a Telephone Booth in the KSRTC station at Kayamkulam, she had quoted the Tender after remitting the earnest money of Rs.25,000/- and after that she had obtained the same for a sum of Rs.77,777/- and remitted the total amount of Rs.1,02,777/- before the opposite party. For executing the Bond, she had purchased Rs.50/- stamp paper. But due to the direction of the 3rd opposite party, she had not executed the Bond. The bond is to be executed for 3 years period from the date of getting the connection from 4th opposite party BSNL. It is stated in the agreement that the allotment of the Booth is subject to the disposal of written petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. As such, 3rd opposite party issued permission letter to the 4th opposite party. As per the letter of the 3rd opposite party, on 14.2.2006 the 4th opposite party directed her to deposit a security amount of Rs.500/- and execute the Bond. She had remitted the said amount. But, at the time of contact with the 4th opposite party, they informed that the 3rd opposite party had requested to keep the file in pending. But she requested the 3rd opposite party to take steps to function the booth. As per the instruction of the 3rd opposite party, she contacted the Chief Engineer of the 3rd opposite party. But she had not obtained any relief to set up the booth. After a long period, the 2nd opposite party had issued direction to remit the ground rent and its arrears to function the booth. Based on the said direction of the 2nd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party issued letter to her to clear the arrears at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month, from 22.7.2004 to 30.6.2006 and allowed her to function the booth. After that she had requested the 2nd opposite party to give necessary instruction to the concerned officers in order to start the booth by construction of booth and electric connection. But after 3 months, she had received notice from 2nd opposite party stating that she is liable to remit the arrear rent, even though the booth has not set up for the said period. The Hon’ble High Court has quashed the said notices of the 2nd opposite party. She had contacted the Human Rights Commission for this matter. The 2nd opposite party had intimated her that since the writ petition was pending before the Hon’ble High Court, they are not in a position to take up the matter as required by her. She had submitted the required papers before the 2nd opposite party regarding the withdrawal of case before the Hon’ble High Court. Any way, she had not obtained any relief for the said matter. Hence the complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed detailed version. 4th opposite party exempted.
4. In the version of opposite parties 1 to 3, it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute involved in the case. The dispute referred in the complaint is in a civil nature arised on the basis of an agreement. It is stated that the complainant earlier filed a writ petition as No.18584/05 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, and a petition before the Hon’ble Human Rights Commission alleging the same cause of action and both cases were disposed off. It is stated that the complainant had quoted the highest assured amount for conducting Telephone booth at Kayamkulam bus station. But she had not fulfilled the conditions in the agreement and not taken any steps to start the booth; after remitting the monthly license fee in advance. She had remitted the license fee after executing the agreement and that was after a period of 9 months. But they have issued no objection certificate to the 4th opposite party. But the complainant neither start the booth nor made any contact with them. It is further stated that, after a long period, the complainant approached them with a letter demanding her willingness to start the booth. But she had not produced the sanction letter from the 4th opposite party. In addition to that the complainant has to remit the arrears of rent from 22.7.2004 onwards. The license granted to the complainant was for 3 years from 14.1.2004 to 14.1.2007 and the same was expired. They have sustained revenue loss due to the act of the complainant. Earlier, the complainant was the auction purchaser for setting up of a urine shed at the bus station and in that case, she had also committed default amount to them. It is further submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation.
3. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?
3) Other reliefs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents in evidence marked – Exts.A1 to A16 – Ext.A1 is the Power of Attorney executed by the complainant authorizing her husband to conduct the case before the Forum. Ext.A2 is the copy of Cash Receipt dt. 2.1.2004 regarding the remittance of Rs.25000/- towards the earnest money for the tender. Ext.A3 is the copy of the order dt. 14.1.2004 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A4 is the cash receipt dt. 3.11.2004 regarding the remittance of license fee for conducting the booth. Ext.A5 is the copy of the letter by the 3rd opposite party issued to the 4th opposite party, the BSNL., regarding the allotment. Ext.A6 is the letter issued by the 4th opposite party to the complainant requesting her to remit the fee for getting the connection. Ext.A7 is the copy of the letter of the 4th opposite party regarding the remittance of Rs.5000/- by the complainant. Ext.A8 is the copy of the application dt. 17.3.2006 of the complainant issued to the opposite parties 1 and 3, to speed up the matter. Ext.A9 is the letter dt. 19.6.2006 issued to the complainant by the 4th opposite party, requesting to remit the rent arrear from 22.7.2004 onwards. Ext.A10 is the copy of the letter dt. 26.6.2006 issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant requesting to remit the arrear license fee. Ext.A11 is the copy of the order dt. 17.7.2006 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in WP( C)No.18584/2004. Ext.A12 is the copy of the paper cutting dt. 21.11.2008 of Malayala Manorama stating the above matter. Ext.A13 is the letter dt. 21.11.2008 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant stating the details of writ OP. Ext.A14 is the copy of letter submitted to the first opposite party by the complainant. Ext.A15 is the copy of the order dt. 19.12.2008 of the Hon’ble High Court. Ext.A16 is the copy of bill showing the remittance of amount before the hospital. Opposite parties have not filed any proof affidavit or documents in evidence. Opposite parties have filed a maintainability petition, stating that the complaint is not maintainable in the Forum.
5. We have heard the matter in detail and perused the documents given in evidence by the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant, that in order to start an STD booth in the premises of the 3rd opposite party – bus station at Kayamkulam, she got the sanction for conducting the same for 3 years vide order No.E 52/ 27903/03/207 dt. 14.1.2004 by auction. She quoted the highest amount. As per the sanction, she has remitted the advance amount before the 3rd opposite party. But, it is alleged that the complainant had not taken any steps to start the booth after executing the agreement with the opposite parties 1 to 3. It is further alleged that, after a long period, the complainant contacted the opposite parties to take steps to start the booth. But the complainant had not executed the agreement or clear the arrear license fee. On a careful readings of the entire matter of this case, and after the perusal of the documents, we are of the view that the complainant had deposited amount in an auction proceeding and the whole proceedings are come within the purview of civil nature arised on the basis of an agreement within opposite parties 1 to 3. So, we are of the view that the auction purchaser is not a consumer. The opposite parties are contended that the complainant had violated the agreements in respect of remittance of license fee and long delay committed by her to implement the booth in time. In the context, it cannot be say that there is any latches on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3, and that they have not committed any deficiency in service. Since the dispute is arised on the basis of contact, this Forum is not competent to entertain the complaint. In addition to this, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and after detailed verification of the documents produced by the complainant in evidence, we are of the view that since there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3, the complaint is to be disallowed and that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and costs from the opposite parties. All the issues are found in favour of the opposite parties.
In the result, the complaint is disallowed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 23rd day of September, 2010.
Sd/- Sri. K.Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Power of Attorney
Ext.A2 - Copy of the cash receipt dt. 2.1.2004
Ext.A3 - Copy of the order dt. 14.1.2004
Ext.A4 - Cash receipt dt. 311.2004
Ext.A5 - Copy of the letter by the 3rd opposite party issued to the
4th opposite party
Ext.A6 - Letter issued by the 4th opposite party to the complainant
Ext.A7 - Copy of the letter of the 4th opposite party regarding the
Remittance of Rs.5000/- by the complainant
Ext.A8 - Copy of the application dt. 17.3.2006
Ext.A9 - Letter dt. 19.6.2006 issued to the complainant
Ext.A10 - Copy of the letter dt. 26.6.2006 issued by the 3rd opposite
party to the complainant
Ext.A11 - Copy of the order dt. 17.7.2006 issued by the 3rd opposite
Party to the complainant
Ext.A12 - Copy of the paper cutting dt. 21.11.2008
Ext.A13 - Letter dt. 21.11.2008 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the
Complainant
Ext.A14 - Copy of the letter submitted to the 1st opposite party by the
Complainant
Ext.A15 - Copy of the order dt. 19.12.2008 of the Hon’ble High Court
Ext.A16 - Copy of bill showing the remittance of amount before the
Hospital
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
