BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.2029/2011

DATED THIS THE 24^th FEBRUARY 2014

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SRI.H.JANARDHANA, MEMBER

Complainant: -             

                                                K.Neelakantachar,

                                                Asst. Draft’s man & Ex-officer,

                                                Deputy Secretary to Government,

                                                Department of Parliamentary Affairs

                                                & Legislation, Room no.36 B,

                                                Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-01                                              

V/s

Opposite parties: -       

1.   Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,

Forest Resource Management Aranya Bhavan, Malleshwaram,

Bangalore -03

2.   Conservator of Forests, Canara Circle, Sirsi,

3.   Asst. Conservator of Forest, Government Timber depot, Mundagod

4.   Range Forest officer, Channagiri, Davanagere District             

ORDER

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops no.1 to 4, praying to pass an order, directing the Ops no.1 to 4 to pay compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs towards financial loss and mental agony.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

On 31-8-2010, the complainant has submitted an application to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bangalore (Forest Resources Management) stating that, he intended to construct his residential house in his property no.1572, 4^th Block, Vishweshwaraiah extension, Bengaluru – 56, so he wants 21.41 Cft of teak wood, 139.77 Cft of Honne and 68,22 Cft of Jungle wood and the said quantity of wood may be kindly be sanctioned to him and alongwith application he submitted building plan and estimation of woods and affidavit stating that he did not get wood from forest department and on the application of the Chief Conservator of Forest has issued direction to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bangalore to make investigation of spot and submit the report. Accordingly, on 23-9-2010 one forester came and did mahazar by taking signature of neighbouring persons by name Sri.Ramachandra, Sri.Shankar and Smt.Shaila and submitted the mahazar report and on the basis of mahazar the Deputy Conservator of Forest has opined to sanction the wood to complainant as prayed in his application. Thereafter on 18-10-2010 the Govt. of Karnataka has sanctioned 21.41 Cft of Teak, 103.77 Cft of Honne and 68.22 Cft of Jungle wood in Canara circle depending upon the availability of wood, and the orders valid for six months from the date of order dated 18-10-2010 by putting condition. On 30-10-2010 the complainant went to the Conservator of Forest, Canara Circle, Sirsi and in tern Conservator of Forest has issued a direction to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Yellapura to release wood to the complainant depending upon the availability of wood in the Govt. depot, Mundagod. When the complainant enquired the Mundagod/Sirsi forest department, he was informed the following price: (1) 21 Cft of Teak Rs.50,000=00 (1 Cft 2272), (2) 103 Cft of Honne is Rs.40,000=00 (1 Cft 390) and (3) 68.22 Cft of Jungle wood is Rs.28,000=00 (1 Cft 410) and total Rs.1,18,000=00. On 30-10-2010 the complainant met the Asst. Conservator of Forest, Govt. depot Mundagod and submitted the application requesting to release wood as per permit issued by the Government and he was informed in writing under their letter dated 30-10-2010 that public auction was conducted from 22-10-2012 to 23-10-2010 in the depot and at present there is no wood stock available and in case stock comes, they will take action to release the wood. Annexure-1 was issued by the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest and in order to issue annexure-2, they took 15 days time. The Mahazar was conducted 8 days late and in order to issue annexure-3 seven days time was taken. The general auction of wood in Mundagod depot was conducted on 22-10-2010 and 23-10-2010, after issuance of permit in the name of complainant within 4 to 5 days from the date of permit auction was conducted. When the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bangalore has issued a permit is it not the duty of subordinate officers of the Chief Conservator of Forest to obey it. Atleast they ought to have issued written notice to the complainant before conducting public auction of wood. If concerned Forest officers had informed the complainant the date of auction he would have participated in the bid. Thereafter the complainant has made many requests to supply wood immediately, but his efforts ended in vain. The complainant has sent representation to the Forest Minister also. The complainant has started construction of his house on 27-8-2010 on labour contract basis; he has to supply material to the Mestri as per construction agreement. The construction had to be completed within 2-12-2010, so on account of it, the complainant has purchased wood from private timbers by name K.S.Timber, Chennagiri on 12-12-2010 for Rs.1,27,000=00. Since the carpenter told the complainant that the wood purchased is not sufficient, so the complainant has purchased further wood from Jalaram Timbers, Bangalore on 11-2-2011 for Rs.17,000=00. In the mean time, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Yellapura has informed the Asst. Conservator of Forest, Govt. depot, Mundagod to release the wood in the name of complainant and copy of that letter was issued to the complainant. The said letter of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Yellapura division is of no help to the complainant. Again the complainant has purchased a wood from one Om Timbers, Bangalore for Rs.3,874=00 and in all the complainant has purchased wood from private timbers for a sum of Rs.1,64,957=00. On 21-6-2011 the complainant has sent representation to the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Bangalore to indemnify the loss caused to him, but his request was rejected. The complainant purchased wood from private timbers to the tune of Rs.2,15,000=00 and he has suffered financial and mental agony on account of not releasing the wood as per permit issued by the Forest Department. So the complainant has come up with the present complaint, praying to pass an order, directing the Ops to award compensation of Rs.3,00,000=00 to him. Hence, the present complaint is filed.

3. After service of the notice, the Ops have appeared through District Government Pleader and filed version contending interalia as under:

The complaint of complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The permit is issued in the name of complainant issuing the direction to the Mundagod Forest Department to supply the wood, but there is no agreement in writing to supply the wood to complainant. Moreover, no amount was deposited to the forest department, so there is no relationship of purchaser and seller between the complainant and the Ops, so the complaint of complainant is not maintainable under section 12 of the CP Act. The public auction of wood in Mundagod depot was fixed on 21-9-2010 i.e. earlier to issuance of permit in the name of complainant, so the contention of complainant that, the public auction of wood was conducted 4 to 5 day after issuance of permit was incorrect. The day when permit was issued in the name of complainant his serial number in queue and the availability of wood have to be considered. Since wood was not available in the depot as auction was already conducted, so the wood was not released to the complainant, though six months time was given to the complainant, he did not take benefit of it and no amount was paid by him. Now, the complainant has come up with the present false dubious complaint. The Forest Department has not committed any deficiency of service. The complainant has informed that, he has purchased wood from K.S.Timber on 12-12-2010 for Rs.1,57,000=00 and in this regard, the complainant has produced annexure-8 which so called as bill but that annexure is not a bill and that document is quotation. When the forest officer called the K.S.Timber on 27-1-2012 and enquired it is disclosed that, on 20-12-2010 the complainant has purchased the wood worth of Rs.69,170=00 and in all the complainant has only spent an amount of Rs.87,339=00 to purchase the wood from private timbers. The complainant instead of waiting for his serial number has purchased the wood from private timbers hurriedly, so for that loss, the forest department is not responsible. The complaint of complainant is based on presumption or assumption. The forest department has not made any agreement with complainant promising him to supply the wood, so the complaint of complainant is liable to be dismissed, so the Ops have prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OPs, the following points arise for our consideration.

1.                  Whether the complainant proves that, the Ops are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops, in not supplying the wood to him as per permit given by the Govt. of Karnataka?

2.                  If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

3.                  What order?

5. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1:  In the Negative

Point no.2:  In view of the negative findings on the

point no.1, the complainant is not entitled 

to any relief as prayed in the complaint

          Point no.3:  For the following order

REASONS

          6. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence, and produced 16 copies of documents which are marked as Annexure-1 to 16. On the other hand, the 2^nd OP has filed his affidavit and produced five documents which are marked as annexure-1 to 5 and also produce five more documents with memo dated 11-10-2012. We have heard the arguments of both parties and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides in between lines.

7. One K.Neelakantachar, who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit that, on 31-8-2010, he wrote a letter to the Chief Conservator of Forest praying to sanction 21.41 Cft of teak wood, 139.11 Cft of Honne and 68,22 Cft of Jungle wood as he intended to construct a house in his property bearing no. 1572, 4^th block, Vishweshwaraiah extension, Bengalurup56, and on his application, the Chief Conservator of Forest has issued direction to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bangalore to inspect the spot and sanction the wood and accordingly, the forester of forest department has conducted a mahazar by taking signature of neighbouring persons by name Sri.Ramachandra, Sri.Shankar and Smt.Shaila and submitted the mahazar report and on the basis of mahazar report, the Deputy Conservator of Forest has opinioned to supply the wood to him by imposing some condition. On 18-10-2010 the Govt. of Karnataka has issued permit to him sanctioning 21.41 Cft of Teak, 103.77 Cft of Honne and 68.22 Cft of Jungle wood and that permit was valid for six months from 18-10-2010 and the order of the Govt. of Karnataka issuing permit in his name is produced which is marked as annexure-4. As per the instructions of annexure-4, he visited the office of Conservator of Forest, Canara Circle, Sirsi on 30-10-2010 and the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Govt. depot Yellapura was instructed to supply wood to him which is availability in the Govt. wood depot, Mundagod, and that order is at annexure-5. When he enquired in Mundagod/Sirsi forest department through phone, he was informed the value of 21 Cft Teak will be Rs.50,000=00, the value of 103 Cft of Honne is Rs.40,000=00  and the value of 68.22 Cft of Jungle wood is Rs.28,000=00 and total is of Rs.1,18,000=00, and accordingly on 30-10-2010 he went and met the Asst. Conservator of Forest, Govt. depot, Mundagod and requested to supply the wood to him and he was informed in writing stating that all stock in the depot was sold in the public auction on 22-10-2010 and 23-10-2010 and there is no stock in depot and if stock comes, he will be supplied the wood and that letter is produced at annexure-6. Looking to the annexure-1 to 3, it is made clear that, in order to notify annexure-2 and 3, 15 days, 7 days delay was made respectively. Permit was issued in his name by the government after drawing mahazar of spot and immediately within 4 to 5 days from the date of permit the public auction of wood was conducted and by doing so he was not having any benefits and he does not know why he was to made travel, and concerned Forest officer ought to have taken steps to comply the direction of permit issued by the government. If concerned forest officer had given intimation to him about the date of public auction, he would have participated in the auction and in this regard he made several requests to concerned forest officer to release the wood as per permit issued, but his effort ended in vain, he gave representation to Forest Minister also, he started construction of his house on 27-8-2010 on labour contract basis and he had to supply all material to Mestri and there is construction agreement made with the Mestri on 28-8-2010 which is produced at annexure-7 and as per the construction agreement, the construction of house had to be completed within 2-12-2010. So under the circumstance, he has no option to purchase the wood from private timbers by name K.S.Timber, Chennagiri on 12-12-2010 for a sum Rs.1,27,000=00, and he purchased additional wood from Jalaram Timbers, Bangalore on 11-2-2011 for a sum of Rs.17,000=00. In the mean time, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Yellapura has instructed Forest officer, Govt. depot Mundagod to select the wood to him as per permit issued by the government and copy of letter was issued to him, but that letter of the said officer is not helpful to him, and again he purchased additional wood from Om Timbers, Bangalore for a sum of Rs.3,874=00 and in all he purchased wood from private timbers a sum of Rs.2,18,957=00 for his house. He gave letter to the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Bangalore to indemnify the loss caused to him, but his request was rejected. The carpenter has informed to purchase still more wood and cost of wood may go up to Rs.2,60,000=00, so on account of negligence and deficiency of service of forest officers, he was made to suffer financially and mentally. So he has come up with the present complaint, so prayed to allow the complaint and award compensation as prayed in the complaint.

8. Let us have a look at the relevant documents of the complainant. Annexure-1 consists of copies of applications of complainant addressed to Deputy Chief Conservator of Forest, Malleshwaram, Bangalore praying to sanction of wood to him as he intended to construct the house at property no.1572, Vishweshwaraiah extension, Bangalore alongwith building plan, estimation of Architect and affidavit of complainant. Annexure-2 is the copy of letter of Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Bangalore addressed to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, City Division, Bangalore to conduct the spot inspection and submit the report with regard to the supply of wood to the complainant who is the Under Secretary, Parliamentary affairs, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. Annexure – 3 is the copy of report of Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bangalore addressed to the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Bangalore dated 28/29-9-2010 stating that, the complainant requested 21.41 Cft Teak wood, 139.77 Cft Honne wood and 68.22 Cft Sal wood  and he may be supplied the same as per the Government fixed rate as per rule. Annexure-4 is the copy of letter of Additional Chief Conservator of Forest dated 18/19-10-2010 to sanction the wood to complainant, as per the report of Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Bangalore and copies of the same were sent to the complainant and Forest officer of Canara circle, Sirsi and others for taking suitable action. Annexure-5 is the copy of letter of Conservator of Forest, Canara circle, Sirsi to Deputy Conservator of Forest, Yellapura dated 26-10-2010 to supply the wood to complainant from Mundagod wood depot depending upon the availability of wood and his serial number in queue as per condition of permit and copy of the same was issued to the complainant to contact the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Yellapura to deposit the amount and get wood. Annexure-6 is the copy of letter of Assistant Conservator of Forest, Govt. timbers, Mundagod addressed to the complainant informing that from 22-10-2010 and 23-10-2010 auction was conducted in the depot and at present there is no stock of Teak, Honne and Jungle wood, if stock comes action will be taken to supply the same. Annexure-7 is the copy of construction agreement between the complainant and contractor for construction of a house in the property of complainant dated 28-8-2010. Annexure-8 is the copy of invoice of K.S.Timber in the name of complainant dated 12-12-2010 for a sum of Rs.1,23,000=00 in respect of wood and at the below portion of document, there is writing in ink as paid Rs.1,30,000=00 by cheque and by seeing the said document we cannot say whether annexure-8 is receipt for having purchased wood or it is quotation for wood. Annexure-9 is the copy of pass issued by the forest department for transportation of wood from Saw mill. Annexure-10 is the copy of Tax invoice of K.S.Timber dated 20-12-2010 in the name of complainant for having purchased wood worth Rs.69,170=00. Annexure-11 is the copy of estimation of wood given by the Jalaram Wood for a sum of Rs.17,595=00. Annexure-11 is the copy of cash bill issued by the Jalaram Wood Industries for Rs.6,807=00 and the said novice is not issued in the name of complainant. Annexure-12 is the copy of cash bill issued by Om Timbers in the name of complainant for having purchased neem wood for Rs.3,874=00. Annexure-13 is the copy of letter of Deputy Conservator of Forest, Yellapura addressed to the Asst. Conservator of Forest, Mundagoda depot dated 21-1-2011 to select the wood of complainant in the depot, if available and copy of the letter was issued to complainant. Annexure-14 is the copy of letter of complainant addressed to the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Bangalore praying to award compensation as he has suffered loss. Annexure-15 is the copy of letter of Additional Chief Conservator of Forest addressed to the complainant rejecting the claim of complainant as forest department is not liable to indemnify the loss. Annexure-16 is the copy of Tax invoice of Om Timbers in the name of complainant for having purchased wood worth of Rs.7,488=00

9. So looking to the case of complainant on the background of oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant, it is made clear that, the permit was issued to complainant by Govt. of Karnataka in respect of wood as prayed by him. The permit was valid for six months from the date of issuance of permit and direction was issued to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Canara circle, Sirsi to supply the wood to him depending upon the availability of stock in the depot and his serial number in the queue and in turn the Deputy Conservator of Forest has instructed the forest officer, Govt. depot, Mundagod to supply the wood to complainant depending upon the availability of wood and his serial number in queue. Since auction was conducted on 22-10-2010 and 23-10-2010 and there was no stock available at present in the Govt. depot, so the complainant was informed to wait till stock comes, but without waiting, the complainant went to private timbers and purchased the wood and gave representation to the Deputy Conservator of Forest to indemnify the loss and to pay compensation to him, but his prayer was rejected by the Deputy Conservator of Forest. Thereafter the complainant has come up with the present complaint for compensation.

10. It is an admitted fact that, the permit was issued to the complainant on certain conditions and also depending upon the stock available in the Govt. depot and his serial number in queue. If wood stock was not available, the complainant ought to have waited till the stock comes, and he cannot dictate the terms to the forest department alleging that, the concerned forest officer ought to have given notice to him before conducting the auction etc. We do not find on what provisions of law, the complainant is asking the concerned forest officer to issue letter or notice to him before conducting public auction of wood in Government depot. Instead of waiting, all of a sudden the complainant has approached the private timbers and purchased the wood and utilized the same for construction of his house. The contention of complainant that, the forest officers have caused loss to him without issuing notice prior conducting the public auction is not corroborated by any believable documentary evidence.

11. At this stage, it is proper to have cursory glance at the material evidence of the Ops. The 2^nd OP has stated in his affidavit that, the permit issued to complainant is depending upon availability of stock in the depot and his serial number in queue. There is no agreement in writing between the complainant and forest department to supply the wood on a particular date. Since there is no relationship of purchaser and seller between the complainant and OP, so the complaint is not maintainable under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant was informed in writing that on 22-10-2010 and 23-10-2010 the auction of wood was conducted, there is no stock at present and after receiving the stock his prayer will be considered. The permit was issued depending upon the stock available in the depot and serial number in queue, their department has not committed any negligence or there is no deficiency of service on part of the forest department. In fact, the letter of complainant was suitably replied by their department. The period of permit was for six months and without waiting, the complainant went to private timbers and purchased the wood at his risk and for that their department is not liable to pay loss. The complaint is based on presumption and assumption, so the complaint be dismissed.

12. The OP has produced statement showing the details of release of timber on retail sale basis from GTD Mundagod. Document no.2 is the copy of letter of Asst. Conservator of Forest, Govt. Timber Depot, Mundagod to the complainant informing to him that, on account of conducting auction of the wood on 22-10-2010 and 23-10-2010, there is no stock in the depot, if stock comes; they will take action to release the wood to him. The OP has produced one more letter dated 21-1-2011 issued by the Asst. Conservator of Forest, Yellapura to RFO, Mundagod to select the wood to the complainant if available and inform.

13. So making careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence of both parties, it is vivid and clear that, the Ops have acted as per terms and conditions of permit issued by the Government of Karnataka. The complainant was informed by the forest officer, Mundagod to wait till stock comes and after getting stock his request will be considered and stock available in the depot was auctioned on 22-10-2010 and 23-10-2010. The permit issued in the name of complainant was having period of six months, and instead of waiting, the complainant went to private timbers and purchased the wood at his risk. Since, the wood permit was issued subject to condition, the complainant cannot dictate the terms to the Ops, as per his whims and caprice. Moreover, there is no written agreement between the complainant and Ops to supply the wood on particular date and no amount has been credited by the complainant towards supply of wood. So under the circumstance, the complainant is not justifiable in asking the Ops to indemnify the loss caused to him, on account of purchase of wood from private timbers. Viewing the case of complainant, on the background of material evidence of both parties, we are of the considered opinion that, the Ops have acted per the condition put in the permit issued by the Govt. of Karnataka and they have not violated any condition as such. So we hold that, there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and as such we are of the view that, the oral and documentary evidence of the Ops are more believable trustworthy and acted upon than the material evidence of complainant. The complainant who comes to the forum seeking relief has utterly failed to prove with clear and tangible material evidence that, the Ops are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops, and accordingly, we answer this point in a negative.

          14. In view of the negative finding on the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

          The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. No cost.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties.  

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 24^th day of February 2014).

MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT