CC Filed on 25.04.2009<br /> Disposed on 16.09.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 16th day of September 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 33/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Syed Nazeer,<br /> S/o. Syed Jaffer,<br /> Residing at Door No. 3227,<br /> Thop Khan Mohalla,<br /> Ramanagara Town,<br /> Ramanagara District.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. N.G. Vasudev Moorthy & others ) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The Chief Secretary,<br /> Government of Karnataka,<br /> Vidhana Soudha,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Commissioner,<br /> Sericulture Department,<br /> M.S. Building,<br /> Bangalore. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 3. The Deputy Director,<br /> Sericulture Department,<br /> Government Grainage ,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to repay Rs.1,06,400/- representing the security deposit amount deposited by complainant with interest and costs, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the OP.3 used to sell by tender the pierced cocoons collected from Government Grainages Centre. OP No.1 and 2 are Superior Officers of OP.3. By Notification dated 03.03.2008, OP.3 invited tenders from intending bidders, for sale of certain quantity of pierced cocoons. The Tender Notification contained the terms and conditions of the sale of pierced cocoons. The material terms for the purpose of this case are contained in condition nos. 1, 7, 9 to 13 of the said Notification. Condition No.1 states that Rs.5,000/- by way of D.D. payable to OP.3 shall be produced as initial deposit for participating in the tender. Condition No.7 prescribes that successful bidder shall deposit 25% of the total value of pierced cocoons on the spot with OP.3 as security deposit. Condition No.9 prescribes that the tender of successful bidder would be accepted or rejected within 30 days from the date of tender by OP.2. Condition No. 10 prescribes that before lifting the sold pierced cocoons the entire value should be paid. Condition No. 11 prescribes that within 30 days from the date of communication of the confirmation of the bid by OP.2, the pierced cocoons shall be lifted. Condition No. 12 prescribes that if the cocoons is not lifted within 30 days as prescribed in condition No.11 or if the successful bidder withdraws from tender after confirmation of bid offered, the security amount would be forfeited and in such cases the cocoons would be put to resale and if any loss is caused in the resale that would be recovered from the defaulter. Condition No.13 prescribes in certain circumstances the Joint Director, Sericulture Department may extend time for lifting cocoons limited to a period of 30 days on collection of storage fee at Rs.0.25 per kg./per day, on the request made by the successful bidder in the event that he could not lift the cocoons as prescribed in condition No. 11. <br /> <br /> As per the Tender Notification dated 03.03.2008 stated above the auction of pierced cocoons through tender was fixed on 23.03.2006. The tender was opened on 23.03.2006 at 1.00 p.m. as per tender condition and the offer made by complainant for Rs.336.25 per kg being the highest offer he was declared as successful bidder. The complainant deposited security amount of Rs.1,06,400/- being 25% of the total value of the pierced cocoons put to sale. The letter dated 19.04.2006 confirming the successful bid of complainant written by OP.2 was served on complainant on 26.04.2006 through RPAD. Therefore the complainant was required to lift the pierced cocoons within 30 days from 26.04.2006 on paying the balance price of pierced cocoons. In the meanwhile the complainant made a representation dated 24.05.2006 for extension of 15 days for lifting the pierced cocoons and that request for extension of time made by complainant was forwarded on 07.06.2006 by OP.3 to Joint Director of sericulture. The said Joint Director extended time and the same was communicated to OP.3 by letter dated 19.06.2006. The extension of time in turn was communicated to complainant by OP.3 under letter dated 01.07.2006 through RPAD which was served on complainant on 07.07.2006. The said order of Joint Director extending time states that the complainant was allowed 15 days time as per his request on payment of storage fee but without exempting storage fee as requested by complainant. The letter dated 01.07.2006 issued by OP.3 to complainant, communicating the order of Joint Director states that the complainant should lift the pierced cocoons immediately on payment of storage fee failing which action would be taken for resale of pierced cocoons. Even a reminder was sent by OP.3 dated 18.07.2006 to lift the pierced cocoons immediately on paying the storage fee and the balance price.<br /> <br /> It appears the complainant again made some representation to OP.1 and OP.2 and also to Government to waive the storage fee and to permit him to lift the pierced cocoons. It appears that request was not considered and there was an order for forfeiture of security deposit and resale of pierced cocoons. Accordingly there was another sale notification and the resale proceedings were held on 30.11.2006 and the same quantity of pierced cocoons were sold for a deficit value of Rs.24,062/- than the value fetched in the earlier sale. <br /> <br /> 3. The above facts are almost not in dispute. The parties filed affidavits and documents. We perused the records and heard the parties. <br /> <br /> 4. The question that arises for our consideration is: Whether there is deficiency in service by OPs while forfeiting the security deposit of Rs.1,06,400/-. <br /> <br /> 5. After considering the terms and conditions of the Tender Notification and the other events we hold that the OPs had not acted diligently as per the terms and conditions of tender before forfeiting the security deposit for the following reasons:<br /> <br /> It is an admitted fact that confirmation of sale made by Joint Director through his letter dated 19.04.2006 was served on complainant on 26.04.2006. Therefore the complainant was required to lift the pierced cocoons within 30 days from 26.04.2006 on payment of the balance amount. As per condition No.13 the complainant was entitled to seek 30 days extension for lifting the pierced cocoons. In the present case the complainant made such request for 15 days extension through his representation dated 24.05.2006 to OP.3. The terms and conditions of tender do not prescribed before whom such representation should be made. However the proper authority for extension of time was Joint Director of Sericulture. Therefore in our view the representation made by complainant to OP.3 for extension of time was valid. OP.3 did not dispute the receipt of representation dated 24.05.2006 made by complainant. However OP.3 forwarded this representation to Joint Director, Sericulture only on 07.06.2006 with covering letter dated 05.06.2006. It can be seen that the Joint Director Sericulture intimated the acceptance of request of complainant by his letter dated 19.06.2006 to OP.3, long after the lapse of 15 days extension prayed by complainant. Subsequently OP.3 intimated the order of Joint Director Sericulture to complainant under covering letter dated 01.07.2006 which was served on him 07.07.2006. <br /> <br /> As per the terms and conditions the complainant was eligible to make a representation for extension of time for 30 days and accordingly within time he made the representation on 26.04.2006 for 15 days extension. The result on this representation was communicated to complainant on 07.07.2006, i.e. nearly 2 ½ months after the date of representation. The condition No. 11 states that Joint Director cannot extend time beyond 30 days from the last date on which the successful bidder was required to lift the pierced cocoons. That date in the present case was on 25.05.2006. The Joint Director can at best extend the time till 25.06.2006, beyond that he has no power to extend the time. But the complainant had requested extension of only 15 days time. The communication of extension was nearly 2 ½ months after the request for extension. Therefore we hold that the OPs did not act diligently as per the terms and conditions of the tender. If the extension was not within the time prescribed under the terms of contract, the complainant cannot be blamed for non-lifting the pierced cocoons and in that event the security amount cannot be forfeited in terms of the Tender Notification. The security amount can be forfeited only in strict compliance of the terms and conditions of Tender Notification. In the present case the extension of time prayed by complainant should have been decided immediately without lapse of time. Therefore we hold that the forfeiture of security deposit by OPs is not in terms of the Tender Notification. <br /> <br /> It is submitted that the son of complainant purchased the same pierced cocoons in the second sale and the deficit was of Rs.24,062/-. The complainant admitted to reimburse the deficit value out of his security amount. We think that would meet the ends of justice. The complainant had not lifted the pierced cocoons though he was given sufficient time at a later stage. We found that the forfeiture was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of Tender Notification. In the facts and circumstances of the case therefore complainant should bear the deficit suffered in the second sale. The grounds stated by complainant in the complaint for supporting his claim for refund of security deposit are not well founded in law. The complainant requested to lift the pierced cocoons after extended time without payment of storage fee prescribed in the terms and conditions of the Tender Notification. The complainant was not entitled under law to make such request. However we found that for the reasons stated by us as noted above the complainant can be granted the relief after making good the deficit caused in the resale. For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The OPs are directed to refund Rs.82,338/- (Rs.1,06,400/- less Rs.24,062/-) within 2 months from the date of this order. The parties shall bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 16th day of September 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />