C.C. No.127 of 2008

Keshab Barik,aged about 57 years,

At present working as Circle Inspector of Schools,

Kalahandi, At/Po/Ps Bhawanipatna,Dist.Kalahandi,Orissa.

……Complainant

Versus
1. Divisional Manager,Divisional Office,

Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd.,

At/Po/Ps Bhawanipatna,Dist.Kalahandi,Orissa.

2. Sameer Satpathy,Divisional Forest Officer,

Bargarh Forest Division,At/Po/Ps Bargarh,Orissa.

3. Parsuram Sethy,Range Officer(Forest )

Ghess Range,At/po Ghess,P.S./\Dist.Bargarh,Orissa.

…..Opp.Parties

4. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,Orissa,

At/Po/Ps Bhubaneswar,Dist.Khurda,Orissa.

5. Secretary to Government in Forest Department,

Orissa,Bhubaneswar.
…..Proforma Opp.Parties
ORDER

Shri A.K.Purohit,President: The complainant has preferred this complaint case alleging deficiency in auction sale service against the O.Ps. The case of the complainant is that, he being the highest bidder had purchased 152 cft timber(sal-woods) in an auction sale held by O.P. No.1on dt.2.11.07 and paid the bid amount of Rs.43,200/- vide cash memo No.333/33274 dt.6.12.07. After purchase the complainant obtained a T.T.permit for transportation of the said timber to Bargarh vide permit No.337517 /534/1925 dt.9.5.2008. But unfortunately while transporting the said timber to Bargarh , near Bhundubahal the transporting vehicle was broken down. To which the timber was unloaded on the road side and the vehicle was took away to the nearest garage for repair. By this time the timber and the vehicle was seized by the O.P. No.3. Hence alleging deficiency in service by the O.Ps the complainant has claimed refund of bid amount and prayed for compensation for mental agony and other losses.



2. The O.P.No.1 has filed his written version separately. The O.P. No.5 for himself ;and on behalf of O.P. No.4 has adopted the version of O.P. No.1. Although notice was served on O.P. No.2 & 3 , they have neither appeared nor proceeded with the hearing of the case. According to the contesting O.Ps they have acted as per the terms and conditions of the auction sale and there is not dispute relating to the sale and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.



3. Heard the complainant. Perused the material available on record. Admittedly the complainant had purchased the timbers ;in a public auction conducted by O.P No.1 . I a case of public auction it is to be seen whether there is any hiring of service by the complainant from the O.Ps and whether the O.Ps are traders or sellers of goods. In this contest it is relevant to rely on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in 2009(3) CPR-97(S.C) in U.T.Chandigarh Admn. Vrs. Amarjeet Singh & others, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “ xxx There is no hiring or availing of services by the person bidding at the auction, nor is the seller or lesser, a trader who sells or ;distributes goods. The sale price or lease premium paid by the successful bidder of a site, is the consideration for the sale or the lease, and not consideration for any service or for provision of any amenity or for sale of any goods”. In the present case, there is ;no evidence to show that the O.Ps have assured for any facility or service. The complainant fully knowing the terms and conditions of the auction had participated in the auction and purchased the timber. Therefore applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the O.Ps are not a trader or service provider and a consumer complaint is not maintainable.



4. Coming to the merit of the case, admittedly the dispute is relating to the size of the timber by O.P. No.3 during the time of transit. Pare-16 of the terms and conditions of the auction sale provides that, “The purchaser will be bound by all rules and regulations of forest Dept. in connection with the purchase transit of forest produce.” Therefore the complainant is bound by the Forest Law and Rules while transporting the forest produces. The O.P. No.3 has performed statutory functions and there is no evidence on record to show that the seized timber is violative of any conditions of the auction sale. The complainant has also not produce the affidavit of the driver of the transporting vehicle to prove that the driver had produced the permit and other relevant papers before the O.P. No.3 by the time of seizure. In the absence of any believable evidence, it can not be said that the seizure is violative of the terms and conditions of the auction.


5. Under the aforesaid facts and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble apex court ,considering from any angel there is no merit in this case and a consumer complaint is not maintainable in case of sale by public auction.


Hence, the complaint’s case is dismissed.
Pronounced in open forum today on this 4th day of November,2009 under the seal and signature of this forum.

Dictated & corrected by me.