This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the praying for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for damage with 12% interest till realization, direction upon O.P. No.1 to provide information sought for and allowing to inspect the office file, cost etc.

The complaint is resident of village Subhash at Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur filed this case against O.P. No.1, Regional Manager of State Bank of India Raiganj Branch and O.P. No.2, controlling higher authority. O.P. No.1 published a tender notice in daily ‘Ananda Bazar Patrika’ for requirement of a commercial place in Subhashganj area. The sole proprietor in the ground floor location on main road with good frontage with parking facility free from water logging etc. of about 2500-3000 sqft. was sought for from the appropriate proprietor. Following the tender complainant participated. And on 26.09.2014 O.P. No. 1 inspected the site of the complainant expressed, high satisfaction after visiting the area, verbally approved his site but asked to modify some portion of the premises. Then petitioner spent few lakhs of rupees for further construction and thereafter waited for acceptance of the offer by the Bank Authority, but with no result. He was surprised and shocked when he came to know that the O.Ps. have approved the tender of some other party. That there is no other location or accommodation which matches petitioner’s premises. O.P. No.1 decline to disclose whom the tender was actually awarded. Then under RTI  Act on 17.09.2014 with requisite fee he solicited all documents and terms and awards with intent to inspect the respective file to see how tender was approved to another party. He drew attention of Central Vigilance Commission as he has strong suspicion that suppressing material facts and giving misleading information there is a corruption in awarding the tender to another party depriving the complainant. On 12.11.2014 he received letter in reply from the Commission that Ld. Commission has find that there is some prima-facie truth as to the allegation of the complainant. On 17.11.2014 he made further appeal to the appellate authority of O.P. No.1, but appellate authority decline to divulge any information vide reply letter dated 22.11.2014. It appears to the complainant violation of RTI Rule.

That he has paid fees for the service of getting information for the service provided by the O.P. No.1 and entitled to get free and fair service. But by giving wrong information suppressing fact, O.P. have resorted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, so he files this case before this Forum with the above mentioned prayer.

O.P. appeared and answered the case denying all the allegations of the complainant and contested this case stating inter alia that the petition is not maintainable, complaint is false and frivolous and complainant has not locus-stand-i. O.P. No.1 denied that they visited the petitioner’s premises on 26.09.2014 verbally approved the site or asked to modify some portion of construction etc. That O.P. No.1 admits that it intend to open its branch at Subhashganj and public notice inviting tender to prospective parties to let out accommodation for bank premises. After receiving some offers, Bank Authority inspected premises but did not accept the offer of complainant considering the rate, location, accommodation, conveniences, etc. but accepted the offer which bank authority thinks proper and fit.

There was no agreement or contract with the complainant to take lease of his premises nor O.P. No.1 verbally approved the offer of the complainant. So he has no locus-stand-i to file this case. That it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is not a consumer, for the same has no authority to file any complaint under Consumer Protection Act and O.Ps. pray for dismissal of this case with cost.

To establish the case, the complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by him as P.W.1  with documents like the paper publication of tender, the Khatian, rent receipt, building plan and particulars of the premises of the complainant, his letters of correspondence with Central Vigilance Commission, Reply letter of RTI by O.P. No.1, letter of Appellate Authority, Complaint letter to Chief Information Commission, etc.

O.P. No.1 files W.V. but did not adduce any evidence but cross examined as P.W.-1 in full. O.P. No.2 did not appear in spite of receiving notice so the case is heard ex-parte against O.P. No.2.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, oral and documentary evidence on record, hearing, arguments advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

It is admitted fact that O.P. No.1 in order to open its branch at Subhashganj, published tender in the daily news paper seeking suitable accommodation and also received offers from intending parties. Complainant alleges that he was an applicant and was verbally assured after inspection by the O.P. No.1 of his premises that O.P. No.1. That O.P. No.1 approved his site and also gave him some direction for some modification as per the choice of O.P./ Bank. Complainant claims that he spent a few lakhs of rupees for such modifications. There is no evidence in this regard. No scrap of paper to show that the O.P. No.1 visited the premises of the complainant on 26.09.2014, expressed satisfaction verbally agreed to accept his offer and directed to do some modifications of the premises, as alleged. In his evidence as P.W.1 further deposed that he was denied by the Bank Authority as he failed to meet the illegal demand of Rs.5,00,000/- by the Bank Authority to approve his offer. He admits further that he did not receive any intimation in writing from the Bank regarding acceptance of his offer.

At the time of hearing argument Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. submits that the publication of notice inviting tender in the news paper seeking accommodation for opening of a branch of the bank in the Subhashganj area from the prospective parties is a mere offer. The Bank Authority has discretion to accept his offer or to deny anybody. Offer until accepted there cannot be a valid contract. That, there is no document to show that the premises of the complainant has been accepted prima-facie. Moreover, complainant ventured before the Central Vigilance Commission, Chief Information Commissioner, Appellate Authority of the O.P. but all these are separate Fora not within the purview of Consumer Forum. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has to establish that he is a consumer and avail services of O.P. for a consideration. As per Sec.2 (d) of the C. P. Act the complainant is not a consumer of O.P. There is no contract between the complainant and O.P. as Consumer and Service Provider. The floating of tender seeking premises for opening a branch in certain area with certain facilities, terms and conditions are only a mere offer. The complainant’s offer until accepted there is no cause of action of complainant seeking relief against O.P. Bank.

Complainant cited decision of Hon’ble National Commission Revision Petition No.1976/2005, in which Municipal Commissioner of Mysore City Municipal Corporation as respondent, whose services was availed by the revisionist as a consumer under the RTI Act. paying requisite fees. And the respondent had deficient in providing service and appellant as a consumer approached the Forum for relief. In the instant case though complainant raised allegations against Central Vigilance Commissioner, Chief Information Commissioner, as appellate Authority of the O.P. Bank, but no relief was claimed from those authorities making them party or parties in this case. So this reference is not applicable in favour of the complainant.

From our above discussions it is clear that the complainant failed to establish that he is a consumer of O.P. Bank as per Sec. 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. As a result the case fails.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the consumer complaint being No. CC - 113/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.