By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant is running an institution namely BSGST agencies and they are engaged in services of making name boards and doing incidental works. The complainant had undertaken certain works of the opposite party and thereby the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.2,95,235/- rupees as per bill No.86 dated 16/03/2019 and RS.11,200/- as per bill number 89, in total Rs.3,06,435 to the complainant. The complainant entered an agreement with the opposite party during the financial year 2018 – 2019 as per pro No.245/2019. The agreement was to provide certain articles and do furnishing work of panchayat office. As per the agreement the articles were supplied and bills for Rs.49,230/- as per bill No.174 dated 03/03/2019, for Rs.48,140/- as per bill No.178 dated 06/03/2019, for Rs.38,700/- as per bill No.179 dated 07/03/2019, for Rs.58,790/- as per bill No.193 dated 21/03/2019 i.e., altogether an amount of Rs.1,94,860/- was liable to pay to the complainant by the opposite parties. The articles were supplied through high look furniture which is owned by Sheeba, the wife of the complainant. The submission of the complainant is that the opposite party is bound to pay an amount of Rs.5,01,295/- to the complainant. The complainant regularly contacted the opposite party, directly as well as over telephone. The complainant caused notices also to the opposite parties. But there was no proper response from them. Though the complainant applied for the information under the RTI Act, that was also not provided. The opposite party cancelled certain tenders illegally during the financial year 2019 - 2020. The complainant submit that tenders were legally entitled to be considered of the complainant. Due to the act of the first opposite party, huge loss caused to the Grama panchayath also. Hence the prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite parties to allow the bill amount of Rs.5,01,295/- along with cost and compensation, all together Rs.7,99,495/-.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the first and the second opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The first opposite party denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party denied the averment that the opposite party had issued tender during the financial year 2018-2019 to supply name board and incidental things to the BSGST and as per the bills altogether Rs. 3,06,435 is due to complainant, which is not yet transferred to the account of the complainant. The opposite party submitted that a tender had issued in the year 2018-2019 as per project No.65/2019, to furnish name board and incidental things for Rs.3,00,000/- and a tender was placed for the same by proprietor of BSGST agencies for Rs.2,99,500/- in a letter and reduction of .05 percent was submitted before the opposite party on 10/12/2018. One Mr. Sheeba U. Raramkandath House, P.o, Trikkannapuram ,Thavannur was also placed a tender as the proprietor of web art communication for Rs.3,00,000/-. Both the tender was submitted from a single family and it appears they are wife and husband. As per the decision of the governing body dated 27/12/2018 tender was given to the complainant on 10/01/2019. But there was no specification regarding the work to be carried out either in tender or notice or in supply order. The person who undertaken the work was not aware of the work to be carried out and the expenses to be incurred thereby. As per the tender the sole work has been carried out is only writing certain goods. The complainant had submitted bill for the same as Rs.2,95,235/-. But the person who took charge of the secretary, examined the bill and file and assessed the same. At that time, it was found that the surrounding grama panchayats availed only below 1,00,000/- for the same. The assessment of work expenses in the panchayat also made appear unreasonable. Considering the ambiguity in the tender procedure, the consideration of only two tenders, and the works were not certain the opposite party wrote to deputy director of Panchayat but no reply was received. The submission of the opposite party is that in this transaction panchayat is the consumer. The complainant tried to mislead the opposite party while the permanent responsible officer was not in charge. Hence the bill of the complainant stands disallowed since the bills stands placed for further enquiry and action.
3. The opposite party also submitted that the allegation of the complainant that during 2018-2019 financial year there was an agreement between the wife of the complainant Mrs. Sheeba and the opposite party for the panchayat office furnishing project, and he submitted bill for Rs.1,94,860/-, which is not at transferred to her account, and altogether there is an amount of Rs. 5,01,295/-, and for that the complainant approached the opposite party several times directly as well over telephone and thereafter documentary, the amount was not transferred are denied the opposite party. The opposite party submitted that during the financial year 2018-2019 as per project No. 245/2019 furnishing the office for 3,00,000/- rupees was agreed through 4 quotations. But the purchase without paper publication was not legal one. The two tenders submitted were BSGST agencies through proprietor, the complainant and on Mrs. Sheeba as proprietor of high look furniture Raramkandath house P.O Thrikkaanapurm Tavanur. There was a quotation in the name of web art communication for the water purifier and steel almirah was one among three quotations. According to the opposite party it is single person submitted two tenders coating two amounts, which is illegal. One of the quotations among the above three is belongs to Kala Home Appliances as per letter pad, which is owned by the complainant. So, it is submitted that there was no quotation notice. There was no compliance of conditions in quotation proceedings. There was no date or name or details in the quotation . The quotation was submitted not in the sealed cover. It is also notable that the water purifier as well as air conditioner supplied by the furniture establishment. All these articles are allowed to be purchased through the recognized agencies. In such a case, if the bill is provided, the audit will be objected and person who issued the amount will be liable also. Hence the panchayat has submitted before the co-ordination committee which is empowered to scrutinize the transaction and to approve the same. The opposite party is prepared to abide the decision of the concerned authority. From the examination of the quotation, it could see that from the date of publication of quotation till the completion of the work there was unauthorized interference can be perused. The opposite party had examined the complainant and the opposite party had issued replay also for his letter. The opposite party also denied the allegation of the complainant that he had approached through Right to Information Act and the opposite party had not provided information as demanded. The opposite party submitted that replay was given but there was a delay and that was due to covid 19 pandemic reason. The opposite party also denied the allegation that the opposite parties did not consider the applications of the complainant and no reply was given, there was delay of more than 18 months for considering the bills, there was indecent behavior from the part of opposite party, and there after approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission etc. The submission of the opposite party is that they had done all the works that they could do and the delay caused in granting the bill is due to improper document as well as illegal documents and for which the panchayat is not liable to utilize the panchayat fund. The opposite party also denied the allegation that the complainant lost legally entitled tenders during the year 2019-2020 due to illegal cancelation of the tenders by the secretary and due to the purchase of the furniture directly by the secretary caused for loss of lakh of rupees to the opposite party. Complainant has not mentioned the date of incident and also not certain who was the secretary during the period. The opposite party submitted that he is being the present secretary of the opposite party grama panchayat, not called for tender or purchased any furniture. The opposite party never purchased furniture without tender, no illegal tenders are approved also.
4. In the above circumstances the demand of the complainant cannot be allowed which is illegal. If at all it is allowed to withdraw 2,00,000/- rupees for the purpose of placing name boards and incidental facilities, it will be misusing more than 2,00,000/- rupees of the grama panchayat. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that, bill can be only provided on through departmental enquiry. The opposite parties submitted that they are ready to provide the bill amount after the departmental enquiry which is found legally entitled by the complainant and so the prayer of the complainant cannot be allowed before finalizing the enquiry proceedings. The opposite party is not bound to pay cost or compensation or interest to the complainant. The opposite party acted legally and the complainant has not suffered any loss. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is filed without bonofidies and the consumer commission cannot treat the complainant as consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and so the prayer is to dismiss the complaint with cost.
5. The second opposite party submitted the version admitting that he was the president of the grama panchayat during 2015 November 1 to 2021 November 7. During his tenure he submitted that, two projects’ numbers 65/2019, 294/2018 for 3,00,000/- each were considered with the object of uplifting the panchayat office to ISO standard and for the same installing name board and incidental facilities for which 3,00,000/- were allowed with the approval of district planning office. The scheme was executed through the secretaries. Both the projects were implemented but no amount was sanctioned to the parties. The district planning office had approved the scheme. The complainant has completed both the project as per the instruction of the panchayat. Though the second opposite party demanded the first opposite party to pay bill amount, till completion of his tenure the first opposite party did not sanction the amount. If a scheme as stated above not able to implement during the relevant year the same project is to be approved forth coming year and legal procedures to be followed by the executing officer and if he fails to do so, the governing body has no power to act in the situation. The submission of the second opposite party is that this situation existing in almost all grama panchayat and due to this it necessitates to plan spill over projects.
6. The submission of the second opposite party is that he is not the president of the grama panchayat at present. He submitted that during his tenure the project was legally implemented and accordingly the panchayat obtained ISO Certification. The governing body had given approval for the scheme at the relevant occasion and so the prayer of the opposite party is to direct the first opposite party to include the project in the current year and to avoid situation to bring this project as spillover.
7. The complainant and first opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The second opposite party did not file affidavit. The complainant side documents marked as Ext. A1 to A 28. The documents of the opposite party marked as Ext. B1 and B2.
8. Heard complainant and opposite parties. Perused affidavit and documents also. The following points arise for consideration.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether the complainant is entitled any relief as prayed?
9. Point 1 and 2
The prayer of the complainant is that to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,01,295/- as per the bills submitted before the first opposite parties for the works carried out by the complainant side and for compensation and cost altogether 7,99,495/- rupees. The complainant submitted relevant documents to prove his contentions. The opposite party did not produce document to counter or contradict the claim of the complainant. But the submission of the first opposite party is that there are some irregularities in the procedure adopted in tendering the works and also anomalies in selecting the contractor. The first opposite party submitted that they are taking further steps to provide the entitled amount to the complainant through the proper channel. There is no deficiency in service from the side of first opposite party.
10. But the second opposite party though did not filed affidavit, filed version contenting that the tender was in accordance with terms and conditions and the work was carried out by the complainant. It is not proper on the side of first opposite party to protract the matter against the direction of the governing body. It is the experience almost all the local bodies in this type of transactions. So, from the version of the second opposite party the complaint is entitled the bill amount as claimed.
11. The commission have gone thoroughly through the documents and affidavits of the parties. The first opposite party has got specific contention that the issues involved in this complaint is not a matter to be considered under Consumer Protection Act, since the opposite parties not provided any goods or service to the complainant, which is covered by the Consumer Protection Act. The commission has verified the claim of the complainant and the contention of first opposite party regarding the maintainability of the complaint. It can be seen that the complainant was providing materials and services to the opposite parties. But the opposite party did not issue the consideration as agreed as per the agreement. Hence the claim is with respect to settlement of account that the opposite parties not providing the amount as agreed as per terms. It can be seen that the opposite party has not provided any goods or service to the complainant. The commission has not examined the merit of the complaint regarding the entitlement of the bill amount as prayed in the complaint. But on close examination of the transaction, it appears the complaint is not maintainable as per Consumer Protection Act. The commission is not competent to allow the prayer of the complainant and thereby direct the first opposite parties to pay the bill amount and compensation accordingly. The complainant is entitled to approach before the appropriate authority for the genuine redressal of grievance. Hence the Commission dismissing this complaint, finding that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as per Consumer Protection Act 2019, with liberty to approach appropriate authority.
Dated this 24th day of August, 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A28
Ext.A1: Photo copy of DD for Rs.400/- in the name of CDRF Malappuram
Ext.A2: Photo copy of tender of Moorkkanad Grama Panchayth regarding high mast
light repair and panchayat office name board and incidental facilities.
Ext A3: (series) Copy of form of tender Form II see rule (6) dated 10/12/2018.
Ext A4: (Series) Photo copy of tender details dated 10/12/2018.
Ext A5: photo copy of governing body decision of Mooorkkanad Grama panchayat
dated 27/12/2018.
Ext.A6: Photo copy of letter from the secretary of the Moorkkanad Grama Panchayat
dated 31/12/2018.
Ext.A7: (series) Photo copies of stamp papers related to project No.65/2019 for Rs.50/-
each
Ext A8: Photo copy of supply order dated 18/01/2019
Ext A9: Photo copy of bill of supply (cash / credit) dated 18/03/2019 for 2,95,235/-.
Ext A10: : Registration certificate Form GST RGE – 06 (SEE rule 10(1)).
Ext.A11: Photo copy of request of BSGST agencies dated 22/03/2019
Ext.A12: Photo copy of governing body decision dated 22/01/2019
Ext A13: (series) Photo copy of quotation details of high look furniture Rs.48,140/-
dated 22/01/2019
Ext A14:. Photo copy of letter from first opposite party to the high look furniture dated
22/01/2019.
Ext A15 (series) Photo copy of stamp papers of the project number 245/18-19 for 50 rupees each.
Ext.A16: Letter from the first opposite party to the manager high look furniture dated
25/01/2019.
Ext.A17: Photo copy of bill of supply (cash / credit) dated 03/03/2019
Ext A18:. Bill of supply cash / credit, request , Registration certificate Form GST RGE
– 06 (see rule 10(1) , issued by high look furniture to the fist opposite party
Ext A19: Letter from BSGST agencies to the first opposite party dated 31/10/2019,
Registration certificate Form GST RGE – 06 (see rule 10(1)) dated
21/03/2019 Photo copy of request high look furniture to the first opposite party
dated 21/03/2019.
Ext A20: (Series) Letter from BSGST agencies to the first opposite party dated
31/10/2019.
Ext.A21: Letter from the BSGST agencies to the second opposite party dated
18/02/2020.
Ext.A22: Letters from the complainant to the first opposite party dated 08/07/2020.
Ext A23: Letter from Sheeba.U to first opposite party dated 08/07/2020.
Ext A24: : Letter from complainant to Deputy Director of panchayat 17/08/2020
Ext A25: Letter from Sheeba U to Deputy Director of panchayat 17/08/2020
Ext.A26: Payment receipt for GST dated 16/04/2019
Ext.A27: GST payment receipt 16/04/2019 and Income tax return acknowledgement
dated 2019-20 year- 28/07/2020.
Ext.A28: Name board of governing body and staff members of the grama panchayat
and also description of various offices facilities done as part of ISO related works .
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
