State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sadguru Education Trust vs The Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Main ... on 9 December, 2011
Appeal Nos Complaint No.177 of 2010 Date of Filing 02/06/2010 Date of Disposal 09/12/2011 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 09th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011 PRESENT HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT SRI. A.M. BENNUR : MEMBER
SMT. RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER Complaint No. 177 OF 2010
1. Sadguru Education Trust Sriniketan Building,madikeri, By its President, Sri.M.S.Ragavendra Rao, S/o.late.Subba Rao, Aged 76 years, R/o.Brahmin's Valley, Madikeri.
.....Complainant (By Shri/Smt B.S.Basavaraju ) V/s
1. The Chief Manager Canara Bank, Main Branch, Madikeri.
.....Respondent (By Shri/Smt. V.Haridas Bhat ) :-O R D E R:-
SRI.
A.M. BENNUR, MEMBER This complaint is filed U/s 17 of the C.P Act 1986 by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2. Complainant obtained work order from the Social Welfare Department of Government of Karnataka on 21/11/2005. As per the terms and conditions complainant is expected to give bank guarantee.
Complainant offered the bank guarantee of OP. OP in terms started collecting Rs.18,000/- as commission quarterly. Complainant did impart the education as per the contract.
But somehow the Social Welfare Department failed to pay him the required remuneration. On the other hand, black listed him and directed the Op to release bank guarantee in their favour. Being aggrieved by the same, complainant was forced to file a writ petition before the Honble High Court of Karnataka at writ petition No.2211/2007 and obtained an interim order of maintenance of status-quo. Ultimately the said writ petition along with writ petition 6501/2008 were disposed off vide order dated 07/07/2009 by the Honble High Court of Karnataka. Thereafter also OP failed to return the bank guarantee to the complainant in spite of his repeated requests and demands. For no fault of the complainant he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Thus, he felt deficiency in service on the part of OP. Accordingly filed the complaint.
3. On appearance OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in to-to. According to OP the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party like Social Welfare Department. It is further contended by the OP that there is suppression of material facts by the complainant. When the complainant is at fault, he cannot allege deficiency in service. In pursuance of the orders of the Honble High Court of Karnataka, the said Bank guarantee is continued. No fault lies with the OP. Complainant as per the terms of the contract is expected to pay the commission and some of the title deeds does not belongs to the complainant.
Hence, he is not entitled for the return of the same. Among these grounds, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Then the litigating parties lead their evidence, complainant got marked Ex.C1 to C18 and OP got marked Ex.R1 to R7.
5. We have heard the arguments.
6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
1.
Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed?
3. What order?
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs, our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2 in the Affirmative and on Point No.3 as per the final order:
:-REASONS:-
8. At the outset it is not in dispute that complainant took the work order from Social Welfare Department for imparting vocational training to unemployed youth belonging to SC-ST. As per the demand of the said Department complainant offered the bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.25,50,000/-. Earlier it was for the period of six months then it was extended.
Of-course as per the terms of the agreement and contract OP is entitled to collect Rs.18,000/- as commission quarterly.
9. It is contended by the complainant that on 27/02/2007 the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department wrote a letter to the respondent OP to revoke the bank guarantee and the pay the same. It also black listed this complainant for no fault of his. It is alleged by the said Department that complainant has not imparted the education to the number of students whom they are expected to do and also they have paid some amount to the complainant excess than what really he is entitled. Complainant challenged the same before the Honble High Court of Karnataka by filing a writ petition NO.2211/2007, obtained an interim order of status-quo with regard to the release of the bank guarantee. Ultimately the said writ petition came to be disposed off on 07/07/2009 holding that action of the respondent to invoke the bank guarantee furnished in respect of work order for the period 2004-05 which has been completed in all respect and in respect of work order for the period 2005-06 is fully illegal. Though this fact was brought to the notice of the OP, somehow OP failed to return the bank guarantee. Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service.
10. The evidence of the complainant appears to be natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quality. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant OP has come up with the defense that being aggrieved by the said orders passed on 07/07/2009 a writ appeal is filed by the Social Welfare Department at Writ appeal No.339/2010.
Hence, they are not obliged to heed to the demand and requests of the complainant unless and until the said writ appeal is disposed off.
11. Complainant has produced certain documents which clearly disclose that writ appeal No339/2010 along with contempt petition are disposed off on 25/03/2011 itself and there is some directions given to the Social Welfare Department to hold enquiry and assess whether complainant is in due of certain amount to them. If it is so, they are at liberty to recover the same in accordance with law. In pursuance of the said directions the Social Welfare Department held the enquiry and ultimately passed an order that actually the department itself is in due of Rs.4,89,700/- to the complainant and that amount is paid to him vide cheque on 18/03/2011. Though all these facts are brought to the notice of the OP, somehow OP failed to consider the request of the complainant. Here we find there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.
12. During the course of the arguments, complainant filed a memo contending that he is entitled to receive back the said bank guarantee, but unnecessarily OP withholding the same.
If the OP is entitled to claim some commission they are at liberty. Though bank guarantee is expired on 18/03/2007, it is not returned to him. But as already observed by us in pursuance of the order passed in writ appeal No.339/2010, the Honble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 22/07/2010 directed to continue of the bank guarantee. Under such circumstances we find force in the contention of the OP that they are entitled to claim the commission. Admittedly as per the terms of the agreement and contract OP is at liberty to collect Rs.18,000/- quarterly as a commission with regard to the said bank guarantee.
13. The OP advocate filed a memo replying the memo filed by the complainant, wherein it is contended that complainant is liable to pay guarantee commission of Rs.2,75,501/-. Some calculation is also given by complainant.
So considering all these facts, in the interest of justice, we find it is a fit case wherein complainant be directed to pay the commission charges to the OP as per the terms of the contract and get back his bank guarantee along with title deeds. OP has no objection to return the said bank guarantee subject to payment of their commission. Complainant offered the other immovable property as a guarantee. He has given certain cash amount as a bank guarantee and rest of the guarantee is with respect to the mortgage of certain properties and those title deeds naturally he is entitled. With these observations we answer point Nos. 1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
:-ORDER:-
The Complaint is allowed.
OP is directed return the bank guarantee subject to complainant paying Rs.2,75,501/- towards their commission.
OP is further directed to return the title deeds furnished as guarantee for the said bank guarantee.
This order is to be compiled within 30 days from this date.
As far as this complaint is concerned, no order as to costs.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER TSS**