Kerala

Idukki

CC/152/2018

Benny Domooanic - Complainant(s)

Versus

Senior Manager CE - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. K M Sanu

26 Dec 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 31.7.2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26^th day of December, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.152/2018

Between

Complainant : Benny Dominic,

Thanathuparambil House,

Areekkuzha P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Senior Manager (CE),

Oil Palm India Ltd.,

Kottayam South P.O.,

Kottayam – 686 013.

2. The Manager,

Oil Palm India Ltd.,

Vettimattam P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(Both by Advs: Dipu Chandran

& Antony J. Marattil)

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Brief facts of the case :

 

Complainant is a petty contractor. Opposite parties published a notice on 21.12.2016 inviting tender of construction of two labour quarters, for a probable cost of Rs.14,43,671/-. Complainant placed an e-tender quoting lowest amount of Rs.12,98,145/-. This amount is 10.08% lower than the probable construction cost. Complainant got contract and he completed the work within the stipulated period. In the month of February 2018, he received the construction cost from the department.

 

At the time of sanctioning the amount, the complainant noticed that, the opposite party deducted 12% tax from the amount sanctioned to the complainant.

(cont.....2)

 

- 2 -

Complainant further averred that the notice inviting tender specifically stated the quoted amount is without tax. Hence the complainant placed the tender without adding tax. Moreover, complainant submitted a blank signed stamp paper for creating tender agreement. It was filled up by the opposite party and get signature from the complainant at a later stage. In this agreement it is stated as “inclusive of tax”.

 

Complainant further stated that the tender notice shows without tax and the complainant quoted rate of materials by excluding the tax, but the opposite party created the agreement by adding inclusive of tax and deducted the tax amount from the actual amount quoted by the complainant. This act of the opposite party is gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

 

Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed objection challenging the maintainability of the complainant as a primary issue. In the reply version, opposite party pointed out that, since the averment of the complainant is based on an agreement between the parties and the complainant is not at all a consumer of the opposite party. Opposite party further pointed out that, the complainant completed the work as per the tender and the opposite party approved his bill and sanctioned the bill amount by deducting the tax from the bill amount. The complainant being a contractor, is well aware that the bill amount will inclusive the tax amount. Opposite party deducted the tax from the complainant's bill and remitted the amount to the concerned Government authority.

 

Opposite party further contended that all the transaction of the case happened within the jurisdiction of Kottayam District and this Forum is lacking territorial jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint and hence the complaint is not maintainable herein.

 

Opposite party further contended that in the Government website www.etenders.kerala.gov.in, when the opposite parties published the tender notice part I, 5^th paragraph and part II, 27^th and 28^th paragraphs, it is specifically classified the remittance of tax amount.

 

It is an admitted fact that the complainant placed e-tender to opposite party for constructing 2 labour quarters in the farm of the opposite party in Thodupuzha. The quotation is for an amount of Rs.12,98,145/-, that is, below 10.08% of the probable amount which is stated in the tender notice.

 

(cont.....3)

- 3 -

After completion of the work, opposite party sanctioned the bill of the complainant after deducting 12% tax. For convincing the genuineness of the act of the opposite party, opposite party produced work agreement which is entered between the complainant and the opposite party. The learned counsel for the opposite party pointed out that in the government website for inviting the e-tenders, the payment of tax is specifically stated and all the tenders are always inclusive of taxes.

 

On perusing the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that being a government contractor, complainant is well aware of the proceedings. Complainant has not a case that it is his first work and he is not aware of the formalities and he is not aware of the formalities. In this complaint, complainant himself admitted that he is a contractor in profession. The version of the complainant that, he was unaware of the contractual agreement between the complainant and opposite party cannot be believable and cannot be admitted. Being a contractor, doing government works, must be well aware of terms and conditions of a work agreement. The e-tender produced by complainant has not stated any details regarding the charging of any tax. It may not be consider that, the probable amount quoted in the e-tender is exclusive of tax.

 

Moreover, in the complaint, the complainant has not stated any details regarding the place of occurrence. Hence the fact of the case cannot be considered as a consumer case and there is no averment regarding the consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. However, it is left open to the complainant to approach appropriate Forum for claiming relief by him.

 

Hence the complaint dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate Forum for claiming any relief.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of December, 2019

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT