EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOK NIRMAN VIBHAG vs CHANDRAKALA YADAV

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 5.11.2001 passed in Case No. 27/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgoan (for short the ''District Forum''), whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in forfeiture of the earnest money of Rs. 15,000/- was allowed with an order to return the amount of Rs. 14,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 10% p.a. from 1.4.1999 alongwith Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings.

THE facts giving rise to this appeal are thus : That an auction was held for realization of toll tax of Kotri Pul for the period 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000 in that respondent also participated and deposited Rs. 14,000/- as earnest money as per conditions of auction. THE highest bid of Rs. 3,02,000/- was of the Contractor Sukhram of village Salhe Manpur, District Rajnandgoan which was accepted and a letter was issued to him on 27.3.1999 to execute the agreement. However, the said bidder did not enter into agreement, therefore, the respondent who was the next highest bidder whose bid was of Rs. 3,01,000/- was accepted and was intimated to execute the agreement vide letter dated 31.3.1999. THE respondent did not agree to execute the agreement therefore, earnest money of Rs. 14,000/- deposited was forfeited as per Condition No. 13 of the auction. THE respondent served a notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and thereafter filed the complaint before the District Forum. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on reappraisal of evidence on record, without expressing any opinion on merits we are of the opinion that dispute was not a consumer dispute for deficiency in service as hiring or rendering of service by the State Government for consideration was not involved, as after execution of the contract the respondent was to realise the toll tax under the contract.

It is also well-settled that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute of auction. See, the decision of National Commission in Ashok Tayal & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., II (1995) CPJ 3 (NC)=1996 CCJ 819.

IN view of the above, the respondent may take appropriate proceedings as may be available to her in accordance with law for declaration and for seeking the relief for return of the earnest money of Rs. 14,000/- with interest in the Court of competent jurisdiction. If the respondent chooses to do so in such a case she can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set-aside and the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum alongwith record of the case. Appeal allowed.