- (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: 2.1 The Complainant, incorporated under the Companies Act as a Private Limited Company on 02.03.2006, in order to earn their livelihood and doing social welfare. In response to a notice issued by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) at Pune, inviting tenders for certain construction work, being a Government Registered Contractor, the Complainant Company submitted its tender and completed all other formalities. The estimated projected cost of the said work was 1,95,12,163/-. Being successful in the bid, its tender was accepted on 23.02.2010. As a condition of the contract, the Complainant was required to furnish to the CPWD a "performance bank guarantee", in the sum of 9,75,608/-, before commencement of the work. Since the Complainant Company had a loan account with Respondent No.1, i.e. State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Tilak Road, Pune, it requested the said Respondent to issue the bank guarantee in the afore-stated amount in favour of the Executive Engineer, Pune Central Division No. II, Pune, upon which the Respondent Bank advised Respondent No.2, i.e. its another Branch in Pune, to issue the same. By debiting the sums of 29,315/- and 75/- to the loan account of the Complainant, the said bank guarantee was issued by Respondent No.2 on 08.03.2010. Perhaps on furnishing the same to the CPWD, on 09.03.2010, Work Order was issued to the Complainant, according to which the work was to be completed within 10 months from the date of issuance of the Work Order, i.e. on or before 09.01.2011. 2.2 On account of some unforeseen circumstances, the deadline for completion of the work as also the validity of the bank guarantee was extended from time to time. During the interregnum, the charge of the entire tender work was transferred from the Executive Engineer, Pune Central Division No. II, Pune, to the Executive Engineer, Pune Central Division No. I, Pune, at whose mandate the validity of the bank guarantee was lastly extended up-to 30.09.2012 in favour of the earlier Authority. 2.3 According to the Complainant, on 10.07.2012, the Executive Engineer, Pune Central Division No.1, Pune, illegally and irregularly terminated the tender contract and invoked the bank guarantee by approaching Respondent No.2, who had issued the said bank guarantee. Accordingly, the said Authority got encashed the bank guarantee on 10.07.2012. 2.4 In the said factual matrix, on 20.07.2012, the Complainant issued a legal notice to Respondent No.2, and requested it to pay to them the amount of the bank guarantee with interest @ 16.50% till realization but all in vain, inasmuch as vide their letter dated 02.08.2012, the Respondents refused to pay any amount to the Complainant. 2.5 In the aforesaid background, alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents in allowing the Executive Engineer, Pune Central Division No.1, Pune, to invoke/encash the bank guarantee, resulting in financial loss to it, the Complainant filed the afore-noted Complaint before the District Forum, wherein it had, inter alia, prayed for the following substantive reliefs: "(i) The Honorable Forum may kindly order the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs.9,75,608/- of the performance bank guarantee bearing No. 0506810BG0000377 dated 08.03.2010 with future 18% interest till its realization, by way of compensation as the Respondents has illegally and irregularly against the terms and conditions of contract of the performance bank guarantee given disservice and thereby have allowed to invoke and encash the amount of performance bank guarantee to the Executive Engineer, Pune Central Division No.1, Pune even when the designation of the beneficiary is precisely definitely and certainty stated in the performance bank guarantee as the Executive Engineer, Pune Central Division No. II, Pune; and (ii) The Respondents may kindly be ordered to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for deprivation of its business and unnecessarily has made the Complainant to sustain and suffer the agonies, pangs of the commissions and omissions committed illegally by the Respondents and to suffer the costs of litigation for no fault of the Complainant."
(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 08.03.2010, 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.;