STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NATURE FENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is filed by unsuccessful complainant/petitioner before the foras below. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are these. The State of Karnataka, the complainant issued a Tender Notification for providing solar wire fencing in Onkar and Maddur Border Area which is a forest area of Bandipur National Park and the Tender was awarded in favour of M/s. Nature Fence, respondent No.1. In accordance to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, solar wire was to be provided within two years and it was to be maintained from 2008 -09 and 2009 -10. However, it is alleged that respondents failed to maintain the same. Consequently, some wild animals entered into the nearby fields of the Agriculturists. They caused extensive damages to the standing crop. Complainant for no fault of it, was made to pay compensation to the aggrieved farmers. It all happened due to negligence of inaction and passivity on the part of the respondents, as a result of which, the complainant forfeited the deposited amount of the respondents and listed them in the category of defaulters in the 'Blacklist '. The request made to the respondents to compensate the State Government fell on deaf ears. Consequently, complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

(2.) ON the other hand, the respondents listed the following defences. The officials of State of Karnataka examined the said fencing work. They were satisfied with the work and they issued the 'Work Experience Certificate ' in favour of the respondents. It was also alleged that the officials of the complainant in order to drive their jeeps and to drive away the elephants, drew the trench and caused damage to the fencing. On the contrary, Ops suffered mental agony and financial loss.

(3.) ALL these arguments carry no conviction. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that all the bills stand settled. The Government Bodies do not make the payment until and unless they are satisfied that the work has been executed according to their satisfaction. In case there was objection, the petitioner should not have paid the bill. Secondly, the State Commission rightly observed that the reserve forest consists of 100s of acres wherein wild animals reside. The fencing done by the respondents was hardly to the extent of 10 Kms and the rest of the forest remained open for the free movement of the wild animals. The evidence goes to reveal that there is a free movement of the officials ' departmental jeep. Secondly, in order to drive away the wild animals, the trench wires were dug, wherein mud was put and temporary roads were made. Both the fora below haveconcurred that the fencing in question was done perfectly, in all respects, as is evident from the evidence of the Commissioner. The evidence further reveals that the nearby villagers have damaged the fencing, removed it so as to allow their cattle for grazing in the forest area. Both the fora below found that there was no deficiency in service and dismissed the claim made by the petitioner.