IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/40/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
24.03.17 17.05.17 28.01.2020
Complainant: Wazed Ali Molla
S/o Lt. Mahasin Ali Molla
Vill&PO- Sargachi, PS-Beldanga, Pin-742134
Dist-Murshidabad
-Vs-
Opposite Party: (a) The Principal
ITI College, Banjitia, Berhampore
Murshidabad, Pin-742101
(b) The Chairman
IMC of ITI NTPC, Farakka
PO-Nabarun, PS-Farakka,
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742236
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Partha Sarathi Ghosh.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 : Sri. Debasish Sinha Roy.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Sri Subir Sinha Ray .. … Member
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
One Wazed Ali Molla (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Principal, ITI College, Banjetia and another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is a contractor and performing repairing works and other necessary works for new construction and renovation of old dilapidated building. The Complainant responded to the tender issued by IMC of ITI, NTPC Farakka for renovation of IMC workshop according to the rules and regulations mentioned in the tender form. The Complainant was selected for the tender and deposited 5% earnest money and after depositing the same the OP issued work order and the Complainant performed the job in terms of the tender. But after completion of the work the OPs did not refund the earnest money for the work. As a result, the Complainant issued a notice to the OPs through his Advocate Mr. Akbar Ali by registered post with AD but the OPs did not pay any heed to it. The OPs miserably failed to discharge their obligation and duties to refund the earnest money of Rs.84,000/- along with 9% interest in favour of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant has filed this case praying for refund earnest money of Rs.84,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit.
The OPs contested the case by filing written version contending that the case is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer. It is the case of the OPs that the Complainant is a contractor and he received the work order issued by the NTPC after depositing demanded 5% earnest money of the value of the tender which is equivalent to Rs.84,000/-. The OPs hired the services of the Complainant in lieu of money so the OP No.( b) is a consumer under the petitioner. That during execution of work of NTPC it is found that the Complainant had deviated from the work order specifications. Those latches on the part of the Complainant were intimated by the authority and the Complainant complied the same by supplying correct materials and reworking as per work order specifications. However, due to latches and negligence on the part of the Complainant, the work was completed with delay. So, the authority decided to deduct 5% of the executed value equal to the sum of Rs.13,159/- from total executed work of Rs.26,31,780/-. The IMC of ITI prepared a cheque in the name of the Complainant for a sum of Rs.70,141/- after deduction of Rs.13,159/- from security deposit. It was duly intimated to the Complainant but he did not turn up to receive the cheque and filed the case by suppressing the facts. Hence, the case is liable to be rejected.
On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for consideration
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant got the job for renovation work of IMC work shop on deposit of Rs.84,000/- as earnest money but the OPs did not refund the said earnest money in spite of completion of work. It is urged that the Complainant is a consumer under the OPs.
In reply, the Ld. Advocates for the OPs submit that the Complainant is not a consumer as the Complainant never hired the services of the OPs but the OPs hired the service of the Complainant.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version and documents filed by the Complainant. We have also considered the submission of both sides.
On a careful consideration, we find that the Complainant has not hired the services of the OPs for consideration. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant is not a consumer under the OPs.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action of this case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint..
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.84,000/- along with interest @ 9% P.A. from the OPs as they have deficiency in service.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OPs submits that the OPs have no deficiency in service and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. He fairly submits that the OPs are ready to pay Rs.70,841/- to the Complainant after deducting Rs.13,159/- out of the total earnest money of Rs.84,000/- as the work was delayed due to latches and negligence on the part of the Complainant. It is urged that the OPs intimated the Complainant to receive the cheque amounting Rs.70,841/- and they are still willing to pay the said amount to the Complainant.
We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of both sides. Admittedly, the Complainant was selected for renovation work of IMC work shop in response to a tender issued by the NTPC Authority and deposited a sum of Rs.84,000/- as earnest money. Admittedly, the earnest money is still in the hands of the OPs after completion of renovation work in response to the tender. The OPs are willing to refund Rs.70,841/- after deducting Rs.13,159/- out of Rs.84,000/- to the Complainant as the completion of renovation work was delayed due to latches and negligence on the part of the Complainant.
On a careful consideration, we find that the OPs have no deficiency in service and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the OPs. We find that he OPs are willing to pay a sum of Rs.70,841/- after deducting Rs.13,159/- from the security deposit. This order will not be a bar to pay Rs.70,841/- to the Complainant by the OPs. In our considered opinion, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 24.03.17 and admitted on 17.05.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
Fees paid are correct.
In the result, the Complaint Case fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/40/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member Member President.
