Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/472/2010

Deepak Mehta S/o Kishan Chand Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat oil And Gas Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Khurana

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

 

                                                                                              Complaint No. 472 of 2010.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 14.5.2010

                                                                                              Date of decision: 15.6.2015.

Deepak Mehta son of Sh. Kishan Chand Mehta, resident of village Kheri Lakha Singh, Post Office bhagu Majra, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

 

                                                               Versus

 

1. Bharat Oil & Gas Corporation Limited, 703, 704, Krishna Tower, 15/63, Civil Line Kanpur-1.
2. Dinesh Katiyar, Managing Director, Bharat Oil & Gas Corporation Limited, Krishan Tower, 5/63, Civil Lines, Kanpur-1.      

                                                                                                                                                                                        …Opposite parties.

 

                       

CORAM:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.          

 

Present:  Sh. Naresh Khurana, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               OPs already ex-parte.          

             

 

ORDER

 

                        Brief facts are that complainant has filed this complaint against the respondent/OP(hereinafter referred as OP) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 that the OP advertised through various modes for the distributorship/dealership of LPG and made several false assurances in their advertisement and thereby induced the public to apply for the distributorship/dealer of the LPG and invited applications for the same. The complainant being attracted by the advertisement dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure C-1) of the OPs applied for dealership of LPG. The OPs issued letter dated 13.12.2006 (Annexure C-2) to the complainant by demanding confirmation amount of Rs. 1750/- which was duly deposited by the complainant on 23.12.2006 as per Annexure C-4. OPs again issued a letter dated 2.1.2007 (Annexure C-3) to the complainant to deposit Rs. 30,000/- which was also deposited by the complainant on 13.1.2007 as per Annexure C-6. In this way the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 31750/- in total and the OPs assured the complainant to provide dealership/distributorship of the LPG. It has been further stated that OPs have made several false assurance in their advertisement and thereby extort money from the complainant, whereas the OPs had no legal right or license to issue dealership/distributorship of the LPG. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OPs to refund his amount of Rs. 31750/- but the OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and ultimately OPs issued a cheque of Rs. 31750/- to discharge the liabilities to the complainant. However, that cheque was dishonoured and complainant filed complaint against the OPs u/s 138/142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in which OPs has been declared proclaimed offender. Hence, there is a great deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs by not refunding the money to the complainant.   

2.                     Upon notice, opposite parties failed to appear despite service, hence they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.8.2010.    

3.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Annexure C-1 Photo copy of Advertisement dated 27.11.2006, Annexure C-2 Photo copy of  letter dated 13.12.2006 demanding confirmation money,  Annexure C-3 Photo copy of letter dated 2.1.2007 for demanding Rs. 30,000/-, Annexure C-4 Photo copy of Demand Draft dated 23.12.2006 amounting to Rs. 1750/-, Annexure C-5 Photo copy of Agreement for Dealership, Annexure C-6 Photo copy of cheque No. 600617 dated 13.1.2007 amounting to Rs. 30,000/-, Annexure C-7 Photo copy of order dated 26.3.2011 passed by JMIC, Yamuna Nagar, Annexure C-8 & C-9 Speed Post receipts dated 8.6.2010.

4.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents carefully and minutely placed on the file. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance.

                        We are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

                        Firstly the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred as it has been filed after 3 ½ years from its advertisement on 27.11.2006 and further from the letter demanding money of Rs. 1750/- dated 17.12.2006 and from letter demanding money of Rs. 30,000/- dated 13.1.2007 and even from the date of agreement executed on 3.1.2007 between the parties.

                        Secondly the complaint of the complainant is also without territorial jurisdiction as the opposite parties neither have  any office nor residence or carrying any business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Even no cause of action has  arisen in part or wholly in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

                        Further more it is worthwhile to mention here that complainant applied for dealership for carrying business of LPG which is commercial activities, hence the complainant is not a consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

                        Further more, when the OPs had issued a cheque to discharge their liabilities and the complainant has exhausted his remedy before the Civil Court/Criminal Court by way of filing complaint under section 138/142 of the negotiable Instrument Act, then the complainant can execute the remedy, if any, through Civil Court/Criminal Court  if so advised.

                        In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the present complaint has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced: 15.6.2015.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT.

 

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                                MEMBER.