SHRADDHA INFRA PROJECTS NIRMAN PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, VIVEK SHRIPAD JOSHI Vs. SEBASTIAN J M & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Petition, a Government Registered Contractor, namely, Shraddha Infra Projects Nirman Pvt. Ltd., the Complainant, calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 05.07.2017, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. RBT/A/15/738 in A/14/700. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 30.07.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No. 218 of 2013. By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint preferred by the Petitioner/Complainant.

(2.) Succinctly put, the material facts, leading to the filing of the present Revision Petition, are that:

(3.) Upon notice, the Respondents contested the Complaint by filing their joint Written Version. It was contended on behalf of the Respondents that the Complaint was not maintainable for want of necessary parties and since the named Respondents of the Bank were acting in the regular course of business of the Bank, their names were required to be deleted from the array of parties name. While admitting that the Complainant had a loan account with the Bank, which had issued the bank guarantee, dated 08.02010, at the instance of the Complainant, and its validity period was extended up-to 30.09.2012 on the request of the Government of India, on merits it was pleaded that the same was issued in favour of Government of India and not for a particular Division/Department, as stated by the Complainant. A copy of the bank guarantee was sent to the Complainant, who had not objected to the same. Subsequently also the Complainant, who had been furnished with a copy of the letter dated 21.08.2010 by the CPWD, whereby the work assigned to it was transferred from one Division of the CPWD to another, despite having knowledge about the change of the charge of the said works, the Complainant did not raise any issue about the authority in whose favour the bank guarantee was to be renewed/extended. On invocation of the bank guarantee by the Executive Engineer, Pune Central Division-I, CPWD, Pune, as per terms and conditions thereof, the Bank had no right to withhold the requisite amount and, accordingly, the amount was remitted to the Government of India.