By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- the Complainant was participant in the auction sale of Teak wood on 9.04.1992 in Tholpetty Range. The auction price was Rs.1,70,833/- and Rs.3,83,928/- the Complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- each for each set of auction as EMD. The payment of the balance amount as per the terms of auction was to be remitted on receiving the counter singed chalan of the authorised Officer which was not given to the Complainant. The materials which were auctioned were re auctioned the absence of the payment from the part of the Complainant and those were sold 27.5.1993 and 26.11.2002 respectively. The Complainant could not make the entire payment in the absence of challan counter signed and given by the authorised in the department which lead to hurdles in effect sale value could not be deposited. The Complainant received telephonic message from the Opposite Party that legal auction is going to the taken against him. Further it is known to the Complainant that the Revenue Recovery Proceedings are initiated against the Complainant to recover the loss incurred to the Opposite Party in the re auction of the Teak wood. There may be an order directing Opposite Party:-

1. Not to take any further action in realising the claim amount of Rs.18,813/- and Rs. 2,10,073/- in way of two claims as per order No.W(2)2555/92(1) dated 27.3.2009 and order dated 21.01.2010.

2. To return the EMD deposit Rs.20,000/- each in each set of auction with interest at the rate of 12 % from 1992 onwards.

2. The Opposite Party filed counter in brief it is as follows:- The complaint filed is devoid of any merit and it is with an intention to impediment the legal action against the Complainant. The Complainant deposited Rs.2,000/- to participate in the auction and on the same day again deposited Rs.18,000/- to comply the terms of auction in the Tholpetty Range. The auction of Teak Wood in Tholpetty Range was absolutely based on the terms and condition necessary for auction. After confirmation of auction balance amount required to be remitted was not remitted and subsequently the period was extended for remittance of the sale amount. The Complainant was given sufficient time till 16.07.1992 for deposit of the amount with penal interest and the registered letter was also sent to the Complainant granting the period. The teak wood auctioned by the Complainant consist of 15.502 m3 was re-auctioned after notification. The Complainant was already informed during that time that the loss if incurred in the re-auction it would be recovered from the Complainant. The Government had the loss of Rs.18,813/- to recover the amount Revenue Recovery Proceedings are taken against the Complainant. The Complainant in an another auction in Tholpetty range of teak wood on 9.04.1992 bid teak wood for Rs.1,70,833/- and an another set of timber for Rs.3,83,928/- in this case also the Complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- as per the terms and conditions of auction sale. The auction was confirmed on 12.5.1992, in this case also the Complainant totally failed to remit the amount and take away the teak wood purchased several chances were given to the Complainant for the remittance of the auctioned sum. The re-auction of the timber ended in loss if any incurred in re auction. The bidder is liable for loss of incurred to the complainant. In the re-auction of this timber the government had total loss of Rs.2,28,886/-. The complainant is liable to remit the loss along with interest at 12% to the government. The complaint is not maintained it is to be dismissed.

3. The points in consideration are:-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in the sale auction of the timber?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1 and 2:- The Opposite Party filed documents in IA. 56/2010 along with the counter to the petition No.I.A 56/2010, the documents produced by the Opposite Party are taken into consideration. The case of the Complainant is that the timber bid by the Complainant caused a loss of Rs.18,813/- and Rs. 2,10,073/- in ordinary sale and re-auction sale respectively. The allegation of the Complainant is that the payment on his side towards the value after confirmation could not be effected in the absence of counter signed chalan and other necessary documents that to be issued by Opposite Party. In the absence of counter signed chalan the Complainant was not in a position to make the payment and the loss evented in the resale of the timber cannot be thrown upon the Complainant.

5. The Complainant has not tendered any oral evidence to substantiate the contention. On perusal of the documents it is seen that on ordinary biding dated 09.04.1992 the Complainant bid 30 pieces of timber teak wood of 15.503m3 and the sale was confirmed 12.05.1992. In form No.15 invoice and counter signed chalan sent to the Complainant for the remittance of the sale value on 16.07.1992. The Complainant was further informed in notice No.W2 1241/92 dated 26.08.1992 showing that even after extension of the time of request of the Complainant, the sale value was not remitted by the Complainant. The Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the sale notification as per which if any loss incurred to the Government in the resale of the timber in the absence of payment the purchaser is liable for the loss. It is also seen from the documents produced by the Opposite Party that the Complainant requested for the extension period of payment in several occasions. The allegation of the Complainant that the non issuance of the counter signed chalan as the reason for the failure on his side for remittance found to be false. The Complainant is also found to be participated in re-auction of timber logs the biding was confirmed and time was extended to the bidder on his request. It is also seen from the face of documents that the re-auction was also canceled extending time for Complainant for the remittance of the amount as specified in the documents No. GO(Rt) 22/93F & WLD. The Complainant was intimated from time to time the proceedings of the Opposite Party. It is also seen that to make good of the payment towards the loss of the government it is found to be not responded. In such a situation, the Opposite Party initiated to recover the loss on the Revenue Recovery Proceedings. We are in the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the points are decided accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is to be dismissed. No order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 24^th May 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

Nil.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Letter dt:21.01.2010.

A2. Copy of the Proceedings of the Wild Life Warden,

Wayanad Wild Life Division, Sulthan Bathery. dt:27.03.2009.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.