<br /> By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> Brief of the complaint is as follows:<br /> <br /> The petitioner received a notice from 2nd opposite party on 1.12.03 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.13,233/- towards the Cess in the construction work done by the petitioner in the Pulpally Panchayath. Immediately after receiving the notice the petitioner met 2nd opposite party for paying the amount, during that time 2nd opposite party told the petitioner that he cannot receive the amount and advised to take a demand Draft for the above said amount in favour of the “Secretary, Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Thiruvananthapuram” and send it to the same address. As per the advise of 2nd opposite party. On 23.1.04 the petitioner took a demand draft from the Canara Bank, Pulpally Branch as per DD No. 81375 in favour of “Secretary, Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Thiruvananthapuram” and send to the secretary through 1st opposite party and discharged the liability with the 2nd opposite party. While so on 20.3.2007 the petitioner received another notice from the 2nd opposite party directing the petitioner to pay Rs.13,233/- towards the Cess in the construction work done by the petitioner in Pulpally Panchayath alongwith fine of Rs.13,000/-. On receiving the above notice the petitioner approached 2nd opposite party and told the fact that he already paid the amount as per DD. No. 81375 dated on 23.1.2004. At that time 2nd opposite party told that they have not received the DD. To clarify the same the petitioner approached the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party told that he served the letter (Consignment Note No.441861) Dt.23.1.2004 to the Secretary, Kerala Building and other construction workers welfare Board, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2. On 16.3.2007 the petitioner came to know through 2nd opposite party that the DD sent by the petitioner has not encashed till date. After that he took a DD for Rs.13,961/- in favour of the “Secretary, Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Thiruvananthapuram” and produced before 2nd opposite party under proper receipt. Enquiry revealed that after collecting the letter consignment Note No.441 861 Dt. 23.1.2004 from the petitioner the 1st opposite party was not sent the same to “Secretary, Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Thiruvananthapuram”. The petitioner again received a notice from 2nd opposite party directing the petitioner to pay Rs.13,000/- towards fine for delayed payment. On receiving the same the petitioner approached the 2nd opposite party and paid Rs.9,594/- as fine under protest through DD No. 988288. Due to deficiency in service of 1st and 2nd opposite parties the petitioner forced to pay the fine amount. So the petitioner sustained heavy financial loss. So the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are liable to pay the loss sustained to the petitioner. Hence it is prayed to direct opposite party No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.9,594/- with interest to the petitioner towards the fine amount paid to the “Secretary, Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Thiruvananthapuram” and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and to pay cost of this petition. <br /> <br /> 3. First opposite party not appeared before this forum. Hence he is set exparte. 2nd opposite party appeared and filed version. In the version he admitted that a notice was sent to the petitioner on 2.1.04 directing him to pay Rs,13,233/- as Cess for the building constructed by him. In the order it is clearly directed to produce DD for the above amount before him. On 6.1.2004 the petitioner accepted the notice. He has not produced the DD till 25.5.2004 hence he sent a notice to the petitioner to remit the amount with penal interest. There after he appeared on 7.6.2004 and produced a receipt issued by 1st opposite party he directed him to produce a certificate showing that he has taken the DD in favour of the Secretary. Later he sent two letters to the Secretary asking him whether the petitioner was remitted the cess or not. But no reply has been received so far 23.2.07 he issued a notice directing the petitioner to pay the amount. On getting the notice the petitioner produced DD for Rs.13,967/- on 16.3.2007. Thereafter on 20.3.2007 a notice issued to the petitioner directing him to pay interest for defaulted period. The amount calculated is Rs.9,594/-. It is done as per the relevant sections of law. Hence the complaint will not exist.<br /> <br /> 4. On considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered.<br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of 1st and 2nd opposite parties?<br /> <br /> 2) Relief and cost.?<br /> <br /> 4. Point No.1: The complainant has filed proof affidavit. Ext. A1 to A6 were marked. He was cross examined by 2nd opposite party. Ext. A1 is the photo copy of the consignment Note No.441861 dt. 23.1.2004 issued by 1st opposite party to the petitioner. Ext. A2 is the POD Enclosure Dt. 3.2.04 of 1st opposite party. Ext. A3 is the Receipt issued by 1st opposite party on 16.3.07 to the petitioner. Ext.A4 is the copy of show cause notice issued by 2nd opposite party to the petitioner. Ext. A5 is the copy of DD for Rs.9,594/- date1.8.2007 taken in the name of the “Secretary, Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare from State Bank of Travancore, Kalpetta. Ext. A6 is the DD requisition issued from SBT, Kalpetta. PW1 is cross examined by 2nd opposite party. In the cross examination the petitioner stated that he is not seeking any relief from 2nd opposite party. On perusal of Ext. A1 it is clear that on 23.1.2004 the petitioner entrusted a consignment with 1st opposite party to send it to the “Secretary, Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Thiruvananthapuram” . In Ext. A2 it is seen that the POD bearing No. 441861 was sent to Pulpally on 3.2.2004. More over the POD Number is not serially numbered. Ext. A3 shows that the applicant has produced a demand draft No.767006 for Rs.13,961/- dated 16.3.2007 of Canara Bank which was produced before 2nd opposite party on 16.3.07. In Ext. A4 it is noted that the Cess amount is remitted on 16.3.2007. Rs.13,000/- is imposed as fine. Explanation is called for from the complainant why an amount of Rs.13,000/- cannot be imposed as fine. Ext. A5 and A6 shows that the petitioner has taken a DD for Rs.9,594/- from SBT Kalpetta in favour of the “Secretary, Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Thiruvananthapuram”. On perusing Ext. A1 to A6 and the complaint, proof affidavit of the petitioner and version of 2nd opposite party it is clear that the 2nd opposite party has issued a notice to the petitioner directing him to pay Rs.13,233/- towards the Cess in the construction work done by the petitioner. On the basis of the notice the petitioner has taken DD No.81375 in favour of the “Secretary, Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Thiruvananthapuram” and send the same to Thiruvananthapuram through 1st opposite party. But the same was not delivered to the addressee. Hence the petitioner compelled to pay a fine of Rs.9,594/- Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party. They have done their official duties as per the provisions. Hence we come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of 1st opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.2: Ext. A5 and A6 shows that the petitioner was compelled to pay Rs.9,594/- as fine due to the deficiency of service of 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has to compensate the complainant the amount of fine remitted along with compensation and cost.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is partly allowed and 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of filing the petition till the payment is made and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees thousand only) as cost of this complaint. The order is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />