RDER<br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (Member):<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.<br /> <br /> The brief facts of this complaint is as follows: The opposite parties issued a tender notification regarding the sale of the old buildings of Election Wing and Taluk Office situated at Thiruvalla Revenue Tower premises. Complainant had purchased a tender form for Rs.450/- on 18.8.2005 from the opposite parties and submitted it, after quoting his rate on 19.8.2005 along with Demand Draft for an amount of Rs.11,200/- as Earnest Money Deposit. On opening the sealed quotation, the complainant becomes the second highest bidder. As per the conditions of the tender, if the first highest bidder fails to execute the tendered work, the second highest bidder is entitled to execute the tendered work. In spite of this, the opposite parties conducted a new auction without intimating the complainant and given the work to some other bidders for an amount lower than the earlier tender amount. Subsequent to the re-auction, the complainant sent a letter-dated 13.5.2006 to the second opposite party demanding the refund of the EMD deposited by him. But on 29.5.2006, the second opposite party sent a reply to the complainant stating that on 3.10.2005, the second opposite party had sent a registered letter to the complainant for remitting the balance tender amount within 2 days from the date of receipt of the said letter as the first bidder declined to execute the tender which was returned unserved and on getting back the said letter, the second opposite party again on 8.11.2005 sent another letter stating that the EMD deposited by the complainant was forfeited as the complainant also declined to remit the balance amount of the tender which was also returned unserved and in the circumstances, they are not able to return the earnest money deposit to the complainant. According to the complainant, he was not in receipt of the letters mentioned above. In the circumstance, the attitude of the opposite parties, in not refunding the EMD deposited by the complainant is a deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. So he filed this complaint for realizing the deposited EMD amount of Rs.11,200/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint with compensation and cost. He prays for allowing the reliefs sought for in the complaint.<br /> <br /> For the opposite parties, though they have filed vakkalath, they have not filed the version. So they were declared exparte and they continued as such till the closing of the evidence of this case.<br /> <br /> The points for consideration in this case are the following:<br /> (1)Whether this complaint is maintainable before the Forum?<br /> (2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the<br /> complaint?<br /> <br /> (3)Reliefs and Costs?<br /> <br /> The evidence of this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and <br /> 5 documents submitted along with the proof affidavit, which has been marked as Exts.A1 to A5 on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. Since the opposite parties are exparte, there is no evidence from their part. After closure of the complainant’s evidence, the complainant was heard.<br /> <br /> Point No.1: The complainant has filed this case for getting an amount of Rs.11,200/- deposited by him with the opposite parties as EMD in connection with the auction conducted by the opposite parties on 19.8.2005. The said amount was not returned to him irrespective of his request-dated 13.5.06 by registered post. The acts of the opposite parties are deficiency of service. He also prays for allowing the interest and cost for the deficiency of service of the opposite parties. The complainant had purchased the tender form and submitted the sealed tender before the opposite parties. According to the complainant, he was denied to execute the work, though he was entitled to get back the EMD. But the EMD was also denied by the opposite parties. So opposite parties are liable to pay back the EMD with interest and cost. From the facts and circumstances, the dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties is not connected with any service and hence it is not a consumer dispute. In this transaction, availing of any service by the complainant from the opposite parties is absent. From the facts of the case, the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant’s grievances cannot come under the provisions of the C.P. Act. In the circumstances, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.<br /> <br /> Point Nos.2 & 3: Since point No.1 is found against the complainant, these points are not considered.<br /> <br /> In the result, this C.C. is dismissed, as it is not maintainable before this Forum. No costs. This order does not preclude the complainant’s right to approach proper Forum for redressing his grievances.<br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br /> (Sd/-)<br /> Jacob Stephen,<br /> (President)<br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Appendix:<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant: : Nil.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Letter dated 29.5.2006 sent by the second opposite party to the complaint.<br /> A2 : Original receipt dated 18.8.2005 for Rs.450/- as the cost of quotation for<br /> dismantling the building.<br /> A3 : Photocopy of the Demand Draft dated 18.8.2005 for Rs.11,200/-<br /> A4 : Photocopy of the notice dated 13.5.2006 issued by the complainant to the <br /> second opposite party.<br /> A5 : Postal receipt.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (By Order)<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br />