BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt. Case No  : 1048 of 2009

Date of Institution :    24.07.2009

Date of  Decision  :    18.05.2010

Sushil Kumar Sharma son of Sh.Varinder Nath Sharma, Resident of House No.2132/2, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh. 

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

The Divisional Manager, CTU & Director Transport, Union Territory, Industrial Area-I, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:          Sh.Labh Singh, Adv. for complainant.

                    Ms.Pratima Arora, G.P. for OP

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                This complaint has been filed by Sh.Sushil Kumar – Complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking refund of security amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited with the OP as well as compensation and litigation costs from OP.

                The facts of the case are as under:-

1]             The OP had placed an advertisement in the newspaper on 14.2.2009 inviting Tenders for allotment of shops at Interstate Bus Terminal, Sector 43, Chandigarh on licence basis for 6 years.  In response to this invitation, the complainant had applied for Shop No.13 and send his tender to OP, which was opened on 6.3.2009.  As per the Tender notice in the newspaper, allotment of Shop No.13 was stated to be “immediate”.  When the tender was opened on 6.3.2009, the complainant was selected for allotment of the shop.  However, the possession of the shop was not handed over to the complainant even till July, 2009.  Alleging that he has suffered huge loss due to non-allotment of the shop, the complainant has prayed for refund of security as well as compensation.

2]             In the reply to the complaint, the OP has admitted that the complainant had applied for a shop, as per the tender notice advertised in the newspaper.  They have also admitted that the Committee had recommended the name of the complainant since he was the highest bidder for the shop.

                The OP has stated that as per the required procedure, the final acceptance of the tender for the allotment of a shop and contract thereof could only be after the approval from the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration.  They have placed on record the letter dated 23.3.2009 by which they had recommended to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration all the names of various persons, who had been selected as highest bidders for various shops, and asked for the approval for allotment of the shops to these persons.  When they received approval from the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, the complainant was issued an Acceptance Letter on 31.7.2009 to deposit the required security amount as per terms and conditions of the tender within 15 days of the acceptance letter.  He was also contacted telephonically about this acceptance letter.  However, the complainant failed to deposit the security amount within the stipulated period, hence the shop could not be allotted to him.

                Subsequently, the complainant approached OP for refund of initial deposit of Rs.50,000/- paid at the time of tender.  OP contends that this amount could not be returned as per the terms of contract. 

3]             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the evidence led by both parties in support of their contentions.

4]             The ld.Counsel for the complainant states that since there was no mention of any government approval beyond the authority of General Manager, C.T.U. in the tender notice, the delay in handing over the possession of the shop to the selected candidate/complainant shows deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The ld.Counsel also states that the OP is liable  to  return   Rs.50,000/-  to him along with compensation on this account alone.

5]             The ld.Counsel for the OP contends that it was mandatory that once the tender was opened, all allotment would be made final only after approval from the Chandigarh Administration.  Since, this procedure required time, hence the delay.  Further, when the complainant was offered the shop in July, 2009, he was asked to deposit the required security amount.  But he failed to deposit the same with the stipulated period.  Hence, his offer was not accepted and his security amount stood forfeited. 

6]             In view of the above arguments, we can deduce that the OP could not go beyond the statutory requirements as per government guidelines for allotment of the shop to the complainant.  Any delay in this matter is justified and should not be a cause of grievance to the complainant.  His non-acceptance of Acceptance Letter dated 31.7.2009 and non-deposit of the required security amount clearly shows that he was, by then, not interested in the shop, hence the forfeiture.  This complaint is therefore dismissed.  Parties are left to bear their own costs. 

        Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18.05.2010                                                         Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                     Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’