Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/10/2884

Vinod Kumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arputham Ramesh Babu, - Opp.Party(s)

01 Apr 2011

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM (Principal)
8TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BWSSB BUILDING, BANGALORE-5600 09.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/2884
 
1. Vinod Kumar,
S/o. Prem Raj Sancheti,#773,8th cross, M.C. Layout,Vijayanagar,Bangalore-40.
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON: 13.12.2010
DISPOSED ON: 30.06.2011
 
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
 
30th JUNE 2011
 
       PRESENT:- SRI.B.S.REDDY                      PRESIDENT           
                         SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA     MEMBER
                         SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                MEMBER
 
COMPLAINT NOs. 2884/2010
 

 
COMPLAINANT
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OPPOSITE PARTY
 
 
Vinod Kumar,
S/o Prem Raj Sancheti,
# 773, 8th Cross,
M.C.Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore – 560 040.
 
Ph No: 9844084970
 
In Person
 
V/s.
 
 
Arputham Ramesh Babu,
Customer Needz India
Pvt., Ltd.,
# 380, 2nd Floor, 9th Cross,
Sri Sai Krupa Complex,
Sampige Road,
Malleswaram,
Bangalore – 560003.
 
 
Exparte

 
 
 
O R D E R
 
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
 
This  is a Complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant, seeking direction to the Opposite Party   (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.43,675/- paid towards issuance of licence for dealership for booking Air/Train/Bus ticket on the allegations of deficiency in service.
          After registration of the complainant notice is sent to O.P. inspite of service of notice O.P. remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence O.P. is placed exparte.
2.      The complainant filed his affidavit evidence in support of the complaint averments.
3.      Heard from complainant’s side.
4.      We have gave through the complaint averments, the documents produced and the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant. O.P. being a Company named customer needs India (P) Ltd., represented by its founder and CEO received total amount of Rs.40,918/- from the complainant . The Complainant produced the pay in slip of State Bank of India dated:24/9/2010 for a sum of Rs.25,918 paid to O.P. and bank account extract of M/s Sancheti Enterprises, owned by his sister, which shows that a sum of Rs.15,000/- paid to O.P. Company on 26/3/2010. We have perused the notice issued to the complainant by the Malleshwarm Police. O.P. has accepted amount of Rs.40,918/- from the complainant with a promise to provide distribution licence for booking Air/bus/Train tickets and A.C. recharge. Based on the promise made by O.P. Complainant started booking the air ticket from 21/10/2010, but he was shocked to notice that O.P. has blocked his amount and failed to respond to the complainant. O.P. neither refunded the amount nor provided the distribution licence as agreed. On 16/11/2010 complainant wrote to O.P. requesting O.P. to refund the amount. We have perused the letter written by the complainant. Inspite of receipt of letter of complainant O.P. failed to respond. Though O.P. present in person failed to file his version or affidavit inspite of giving sufficient opportunity in the absence of version this Forum leads us to draw an inference that O.P. admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto.    There was no reason for O.P. to retain the amount for more than nine months, inspite of its failure to provide the distribution licence to the complainant. The complainant is deprived of his amount and also returns from the amounts paid to O.P. When O.P. was unable to provide the distribution licence it would have been fair; on its part in refunding the amount to the complainant. The retention of amount by O.P. amounts to deficiency in service on its part. We are satisfied that complainant proved the deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Under the circumstance complainant is entitle for refund of amount paid along with interest at 12% p.a. and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following
O R D E R
 
The complaint is allowed in part.
 
 OP is directed to refund Rs.40,918/-  to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from  the date of respective payment  till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
 
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date communication of this order.
 
 
 
 
Send the copy of this order both the parties free of cost.
 
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30rd day of June 2011.)
 
 
 
 
                   MEMBER                MEMBER             PRESIDENT  
 
 
 
 
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.