BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Friday the 27th day of August , 2010
C.C.No 154/09
Between:
P.Venkata Rami Reddy, Contractor,
H.No.25/117, Sanjeeva Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool district-518 501. …..Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Excutive Engineer, Panchayatraj Division, Panchayat Raj ,
Kurnool-518 001.
2. Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj,
Yerramanjil colony, Hyderabad-500 000. ……Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Azmathulla, Advocate, for complainant, and Smt.D.S.Sai Leela , Advocate for OP.No. 1 and OP.No. 2 is called absent set ex-parte upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. M. Krishna Reddy , Male Member )
C.C. No.154/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs
(a) to refund the amount of Rs.76,000 /- collected from the
complainant towards E.M.D and F.S.D deposits
(b) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship
( c) to award interest at 24 Percent P.A from the date of deposit.
(d) to grant costs of the complaint.
(d) to grant such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
- The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant is a contractor. In the year 2000 OP.No.1 called for tenders for construction of M.P.P. building at Kallur in Kurnool district. The complainant submitted his tender and became a successful tenderer. The complainant executed an agreement infavour of OP.No.1 on 04-02-2001. As per the terms of agreement the complainant deposited Rs.19,000/- towards E.M.D. OP.No.1 also retained a sum of Rs.57,000/- from the 1st bill towards F.S.D and promised that the amount will be returned to the complainant after completion of the work. Inspite of several demands the Ops did not choose to pay Rs.19,000/- + 57,000/- (EMD Plus FSD) . The complainant also got issued a legal notice to OP.No.1 on 21-08-2009. OP.No.1 received the said notice but no payment was made to the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.1. Hence the complaint.
3. OP.No.2 remained ex-parte. OP.No.1 (Government Pleader) filed written version stating that the claim was presented for the refund of the said amount of Rs.76,000/- in the Pay and Accounts Office, Kurnool. The Pay and Accounts Officer, Kurnool has issued the voucher and returned the claim to Executive Engineer, PR Division (PIU), Kurnool. The Executive Engineer, PR Division presented the said claim through OP.No.2 to OP.No.1. The claim was presented in the Pay and Accounts Office, Kurnool on 11-05-2010 for refund of the said deposit. After the receipt of the bankers cheque the same would be handedover to the contractor.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the OP.No.1 no document is marked .
5. The complainant filed written arguments. Op.No.1 has not filed written arguments. Heard both sides.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of OP?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to any relief ?
- To what relief?
7. Points No.1 & 2 :- The complainant filed this compliant praying for refund of amount of Rs.76,000/- collected by the Ops towards EMD and FSD deposits. Admittedly the complainant is a contractor and he agreed for construction of M.P.P building at Kallur, Kurnool district. The fact that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.19,000/- towards EMD is not under dispute. An amount of Rs.57,000/- of the complainant was retained from the 1st bill towards FSD is also not under dispute . As seen from the affidavit evidence of the complainant and Ex.A3 and A4 it is very clear that the Ops did not choose to refund the said amount of Rs.76,000/- ,even though the complainant completed the execution of contract work entrusted to him. Even after the legal notice got issued by the complainant the Ops did not choose to refund the said amount to the complainant. In the written version filed by OP.No.1 it is stated that the claim was presented in Pay and Accounts Office, Kurnool on 11-05-2010 and after obtaining bankers cheque the amount would be paid to the contractor . Even after lapse of 3 months the Ops did not choose to pay the amount to the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops in not paying the amount to the complainant within time. The complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.76,000/- with interest.
8. Point No.3: In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the Ops jointly and severally to refund an amount of Rs.76,000/- to the complainant within 2 (two) months from the date of the order. In the circumstances of the case no costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 27th day of August 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Office copy of legal notice dt.09-03-2009.
Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dt.21-08-2009 along with postal ack.
Ex.A3. Letter dt.22-08-2009 of OP1
Ex.A4. Letter dt.28-08-2009 of Panchayat Raj, Adoni.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
