O R D E R <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> Brief facts of the compliant filed by the complainant against the Ops in brief are that the Ops are the Public authority of OP 1 and OP 2 represents National Highways, special division. That he is a 1st grade PWD contractor had filed an application to OP 2 for giving information of a contract he had undertaken with them. That he had taken up PWD work in NH 48 but the Ops refused to give information asked for. That on 06-12-2007 he made an application to OP 2 but he did not furnish. Then he filed a compliant on 23-01-2008 before the State information commission. The State information commission of the state registered his compliant secured Ops to furnish the information he had sought. That on 20-05-2008 an official of OP 2 appeared before the State Commission and that representative of OP 2 Smt. Madhavi, the Audit officer of OP 2 submitted to the State information commission that relevant records of the complainants bills, works register, measurement book are traced and on examination she found a sum of Rs.2,34,810/50ps was due to the complainant. The State information commission took it on record and passed an order accepting the statements of Madhavi and addressed the Ops to pay Rs.2,34,810/50 to the complainant as per the order dated 29-08-2008 but the Ops have not complied the order. The act of Ops has caused immense loss of money. It is further contended that the Ops have neglected to pay him the amount due to him. Therefore for the deficiency of Ops they are liable to pay him Rs.6 lakhs. Despite sending legal notice to OP 2. He has not paid the amount due to him as such prayed for a direction to Ops to pay him Rs.2,34,810/50 with interest @ 18% per annum and award damages of Rs.6,00,000/-. <br /> <br /> Ops have appeared through an advocate and have filed common version admitting entrustment of contract work to the complainant and have stated that the Op 1 is not a proper party. That OP 2 by further giving details of the works entrusted to the complainant, estimated cost of those works stated that the work was to be commenced by the complainant on 30-10-1986 and completion date was 30-10-1987. But the complainant did not complete the work despite several notice given to him. That the complainant did not complete the work within the stipulated date and after several efforts the complainant completed the work by 30-07-1987 causing two years delay (We see inconsistent about the dates) That because of the delay in completing the work by the complainant is assets were forfeited and there was interpretation regarding waiving of the penalty by the Government. That the complainant is approaching this forum with his grievances that arose four years ago and has filed this compliant now which is not maintainable. Reiterating that because of the wrong interpretation of the Government order by the complainant they have sought clarification from the government and stated that the complainant bills will be settled after obtaining clarification from the government and therefore denying all other allegation have prayed for dismissal of the compliant. <br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Venugopal an executive engineer on behalf of the Ops have filed their affidavit evidence by reproducing what they have stated in their compliant and version. The complainant alongwith the compliant has produced a copy of the order passed by the Karnataka information commission, a copy of the letter addressed by an Executive engineer, NH special Division, Bangalore to the Superintendent Engineer, NH Circle, Bangalore. He has also produced a copy of the legal notice he got issued and a copy of letter sent by the Executive engineer, NH’s to Chief Engineer, NH’s, Bangalore. Ops have not produced any documents. Counsel for the complainant has filed his writer arguments. We have heard the counsel for the Op.<br /> <br /> On perusal of the materials before us, following points for determination arise:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that he after completion of contract work entrusted to him by the Ops when submitted bills for amounts due to him Rs.2,34,810/50ps is not paid and thereby the Ops have caused deficiency in their service? <br /> <br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:-<br /> <br /> Point No: 1 in the affirmative.<br /> Point No: 2:see the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS: POINT No:1:: <br /> <br /> On perusal of the compliant, affidavit evidence of the complainant and version filed by the Ops we found that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the nature and quantum of work awarded to the complainant within an estimated cost of the work. The complainant has contended though he had completed the work long back and when he requested the Ops to pay the outstanding amount have not paid it and he filed an application to Karnataka information commission on which the information commission secured an official of OP 2 to answer the questions raised by him and stated that the State commission by its order dated 29th August 2008 directed the Ops to settle his claim amounting to Rs.2,34,810/50. He has also referred to a letter addressed by the Executive Engineer, NH, Special Division to the superintendent engineer, NH, Bangalore and he thus has prayed for the relief. <br /> <br /> On going through the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties we hold that the contentions are not self explanatory. But on considering the order of the State information commission and letter of Executive engineer addressed to the superintendent engineer, dispute become clear, that because of the delay in executing the work by the complainant Ops suffered and thereafter when they imposed penalty against the complainant and they got the work which was abandoned by the complainant by getting this work completed departmentally. It is further found that the government of Karnataka on the representation of the complainant waived the penalty imposed against the complainant. The Ops are not denying that the state information commission had initiated a proceeding against the Ops on the complaint of the complainant and letter addressed by the Executive Engineer to Superintendent engineer which reflect the works entrusted to the complainant, was complete and left out work was not done departmentally and penalty was levied on the complainant. As stated above both the parties admitted that they participated in the proceeding before the State information commission and the information commission after hearing the Ops passed an order on 29-08-2009. <br /> <br /> On going through the order of the State information commission it is found that they examined the allegations and the counter allegations of the parties and a representative of the Ops appeared before the State information commission and made categorical statement stating that they have traced the relevant records like contractors bill, works register, measurement book and on examination of all these documents they found Rs. 2,34,810/50 was due to this complainant. The representative of the Ops namely Smt. Madhavi further stated before the State information commission that as soon as the approval to the proposal for settlement, they settle the claim of the complainant accordingly the State information commission directed the Ops to settle the complainants claim. The State information commission further shown to have disposed of the complaint stating that in view of compliance and in terms of the direction disposed of the compliant has it as been redressed. Further we see a letter addressed to the Executive engineer to superintendent engineer dated 08-08-2008 in which the Ops have referred to the order of the State information commission and in pursuance of it they have dealt with the dispute of the parties worked out number of works given to the complainant, total cost to be recovered from the complainant, total amounts paid and payable to the complainant further calculating cost of re-construction, and balance work to be done by further considering the total amounts paid to the complainant and also the amount required to be refunded to the complainant. The Executive engineer has further stated in his letter under: <br /> <br /> “As per the above and as per the available records the total amount due to the contractor, works wise including EMD and FST are given as per the table under which the Executive engineer, NH, Special division worked out the amount payable to the complainant as Rs.2,34,810/50ps and has further narrated that under the above circumstances approval to the following may be obtained and communicated to settle the dues to the complainant as detailed above dully withdrawing all the recoveries and penalties proposed to the complainant as per the Government order and sought approval of the Superintendent engineer for preparing final bill as per the MB books”<br /> <br /> The Ops are not questioning anything about the order of the State information commission and the letter of Executive engineer addressed to the superintendent engineer. Apart from these documents we have highlighted that the Ops have not submitted and produced any materials before us to know the reasons for not acting as per the conclusion reached by the State commission and Executive engineer. The opponents found to have not questioned or disagreed with the order of the state commission and the contents of the letter of the Executive engineer sent to the Superintendent engineer for approval. We therefore ultimately rely on order of the State commission and letter of the Executive engineer which are binding on Ops which have fined liability of this Ops to the complainant. We therefore on considering all the materials placed before us which are not in controversy, agree with the order of the state commission and proposal sent by the Executive engineer un-erringly proves that Ops have become liable to the complainant as referred to the above. <br /> <br /> The next question that arise for consideration of this forum is when the complainant obtained an order of the Karnataka information commission could file a compliant against the Ops with the same cause of action and for same relief. In view of the un-questioned order of the Karnataka information commission the complainant could not have file this compliant again to sit upon the order of the information commission. The complainant in our view once he got an order in his favour whether could approach any other authority or forum agitating the same issue and for same relief. We therefore hold that the complainant could not file this compliant before this forum for the same relief. In the course of arguments we questioned the counsel for the complainant whether the order of the State information commission is executable or not, for which he submitted the order of the State information commission is executable. The complainant as evident in the prayer column has prayed for the amount determined by the information commission and the Executive engineer. Therefore this compliant for consideration of the issue which is already settled cannot be maintained and the complainant could have taken action of recovery of the amount determined by the State information commission. The complainant cannot use this forum as an executing forum to execute the order of State information Commission. We therefore hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the above reasons and pass following order. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the open forum on this the 24th February 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />