F.A.No.1650/2006 in C.D.No.361 of 2006, District Forum-II, Hyderabad..

Between:

Dr.K.Krupa Sagar,

S/o.K.Sampath,

Aged about 35 years,

Occ: Doctor, R/o.Plot No.6,

Nirmala Nursing Home,

Tirumlagherry,

Secunderabad-15.                                                                                        ..Appellant/

                                                                                                                          Complainant

            And

Sri Bhaskar Naik,

S/o.not known to the complainant

Aged about 38 years,

R/o.H.No.3-4-52, Nampally,

Hyderabad.                                                                                                    ..Respondent/

                                                                                                                           Opp.party.

Counsel for the Appellants               : M/s.Gopi Rajesh & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent:           : Respondent served.

QUORUM:THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

                        AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST  DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)

***

            Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.  None appears for the respondent.

        This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order dated 28-7-2006 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad.

            The case of the complainant in brief is that he agreed to purchase a Maruthi car from the opposite party for Rs.80,000/- and paid Rs.50,000/- towards advance.  Opposite party having received the amount did neither sell the car nor returned the amount despite a notice given to him.  Therefore, he filed the complaint for refund of the amount with interest at 24% p.a. from 15-9-2004 till the date of realization, besides compensation of Rs.30,000/- and costs.

        Opposite party did not choose to contest despite service of notice.

        The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs.A1 to A9 marked.

        The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that the case does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and directed the complainant to seek relief in an appropriate Forum.

        Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

        Admittedly the case of the complainant is that he paid Rs.50,000/- against Rs.80,000/- for purchase of a car and the respondent having received the said amount did not either refund the amount or delivered the car.  Ex-facie the facts disclose that it is a case of breach of agreement of sale.  We do not see how it could be termed as a ‘consumer dispute’.  Neither the complainant nor the respondent can be termed as ‘consumer’ and the dispute involved in a ‘consumer dispute’ as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Undoubtedly the complainant, if he intends to get back his amount, he has to take recourse to a civil court, if for any reason, he intends to seek specific performance, he can as well file a suit.  This is case where the District Forum considered all the facts and adjudicated and opined that it is not a  ‘consumer dispute’.  We do not see any merits in the appeal.

In the result this appeal fails and  is accordingly dismissed.  However, no order as to costs. 

PRESIDENT.             LADY MEMBER. 

                                                                                                Dated 21-1-2009.