th June 2009 C.C. No. 61 of 2009

3

4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for

determination.

i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the

part of the respondent?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A10 were examined. No

documents were marked and filed on behalf of the respondent.

6. Point No. 1 & 2 It was not a dispute that the complainant entered into

an agreement as successful bidder to the construction work of Cluster Level capacity

building at Puttur of Chittor District for contract value of Rs. 33,91,801-84Ps. under

agreement No. 36/2006-07, dt. 24-3-2007 and there was no dispute from the

respondent that the construction site was not handed over to the complainant, due to

some local problems. But the respondent requested the complainant to cancel the

agreement and take back the deposits as shown in the agreement. The complainant

mentioned in the complaint at para – 7 that he spent Rs. 2,67,300/- for the purpose

of advance 1) D.D. for EMD of Rs. 84,800/-, 2) Insurance of Rs. 7,500/-, 3) Advance

to Masonry works of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 4) Advance to rod bender of Rs. 50,000/- and

5) Agreement expenditure of Rs. 25,000/-. No prudent person would advance money

to the workers like masonry work, Rod bending without having the site and without

starting the work and the site in the construction was not handed over to the

complainant. The advance of money would be given after the site was delivered

possession for construction by the department. The department had requested the

complainant to take back the deposit amount. But the complainant did not take any

efforts. He filed Ex. A1 a Xerox copy of letter addressed to the respondent to pay

Rs. 2,67,300/-. Ex. A2 was Xerox copy of letter for payment of Rs. 2,67,300/- under

different heads. Ex. A3 was a Xerox copy of letter from respondent to the

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 61 / 2009

B.V. Subba Reddy, S/o Chinna Subba Reddy, 66 years,

Contractor, Residing at D.No. 3/272-E, Surendranagar,

Badvel. ….. Complainant.

Vs.

The Executive Engineer, Panchayatraj Division,

Tirupati. ….. Respondent.

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 12-6-2009 in the

presence of Sri K. Krishna Murthy, Advocate, for complainant and Sri K.

Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate, for respondent and upon perusing the material

papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President),

1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant was a

contractor of Badvel town, Kadapa district. He was given a work of construction of

Cluster Level capacity building at Puttur of Chittoor District under agreement No. Nil

/ 2005-06, dt. 24-3-2007 with a contract value of Rs. 33,91,801-84Ps. He

approached the Executive Engineer, Panchayatraj, Tirupati and Deputy Executive

Engineer, DWMA, Chittoor for taking possession of the site to start the construction

work. He was informed by the department that the sanction of the site for the work

was not settled. The complainant contacted the departmental officers from time to

time. But it was not finalized. On 17-1-2008 the complainant addressed a letter to

the respondent claiming Rs. 2,67,300/- including EMD amount paid by him in

connection with work. But there was no response. He entered into an agreement on

24-3-2007. But even after 11 months the department did not deliver possession of

the site for construction of work. The department violated the conditions 20 and 21

of the agreement. He issued notices to the Superintending Engineer, Panchayatraj,

2

Kadapa, the District Collector, Kadapa, Project Director, DWMA, Chittoor and

Engineer in Chief, Panchayatraj, Hyderabad requesting to handover the site or refund

of the amount of expenditure of Rs. 2,67,300/-. There was no response. The

complainant spent 1) D/D. for EMD of Rs. 84,800/-, 2) Insurance of Rs. 7,500/-,

3) Advance to Masonry works of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 4) Advance to rod bender of

Rs. 50,000/- and 5) Agreement expenditure of Rs. 25,000/- totaling Rs. 2,67,300/-.

Therefore, the complaint was filed for refund of Rs. 2,67,300/- with interest to the

complainant.

3. The respondent filed a counter that the complainant was a successful

bidder to the construction work of Cluster level capacity building at Puttur of

Chittoor District and entered into an agreement bearing No. 36/2006-07, dt.

24-3-2007 with a contract value of Rs. 33,91,801-84Ps. On account of some

problems raised by the public the site was not handed over and the complainant was

requested to cancel the agreement and take back the deposit under clause – 58 of the

preliminary specifications incorporated in the agreement. It was not correct that the

complainant spent much expenditure for advance to different persons towards

construction work. As the site was not handed over for construction, there was n o

scope for advance payments. The agreement was entered into with the

Superintending Engineer, Panchayatraj and under specific clause 23.2 of the

agreement the claims, if any, could be settled. The contractor had to approach the

Civil Court of competent jurisdiction relating to any claim more than Rs. 50,000/-.

So the District Forum had no jurisdiction and there was no deficiency of service. The

department was ready to return the deposit amount made by the complainant

towards agreement, if he would approach the department by submitting proper

representation. Thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

C.C. No. 61 of 2009

DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA

PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A., B.L., MEMBER.

SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER

Wednesday, 17