G. Vittla Shetty V/S S.Vasantha Rao. - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

cc/09/2620

S.Vasantha Rao. - Complainant(s)

Versus

G. Vittla Shetty - Opp.Party(s)

27 May 2010

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. cc/09/2620

S.Vasantha Rao.						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
G. Vittla Shetty						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 07-11-2009 DISPOSED ON: 27-05-2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 27TH MAY 2010 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.2620/2009 COMPLAINANT S. Vasanth Rao, C/o V.K. Nagesh, Social Worker, No.73 /47, Mandara, Ground Floor, 1st Main Road, K.G.S. Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore 40. In Person V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY G. Vittla Shetty, S/o. Late Venkatapp Shetty, BMTC Canteen, Durga fast food, KavalByrasandra. RT Nagar, Bangalore-32 Ex-Parte O R D E R SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT The complainant filed this complaint seeking direction against the OP to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and pay compensation of Rs.96,000/- for the mental agony and harassment with cost of litigation. In the complainant it is stated that the complainant has taken on lease Durga Upahar canteen at BMTC bus station KavalByrasandra of R T Nagar, Bangalore on daily rent of Rs. 350/- from OP and paid a amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as deposit on 10.11.2008. The lease period was of 11 months. When still a period of 8 months and a week was there for completion of the lease period, OP forcibly thrown out utensils and other articles from the canteen building and locked the same on 19.03.2009; without refunding deposit amount. Thus it is alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. OP has not furnished correct address; he is avoiding to meet the complainant. 2. The PA Holder of the complainant filed memo to issue notice by paper publication. Accordingly notice was issued. Earlier notice issued by registered post was returned as left. Inspite of paper publication OP failed to appear; hence placed ex-parte. 3. The PA Holder of the complainant had sent his affidavit evidence through post. The written arguments filed, the article published in Grahak Chaya regarding the Consumer Protection Act is produced; additional written arguments also sent by post. 4. From the documents produced it becomes clear that OP herein as a licensee executed agreement on 16.09.2004, in favour of licenser Chief Traffic Manager, BMTC, Central office, Bangalore; in respect of running refreshment room, at KavalByrasandra bus stand for a period of Six years commencing from 20.09.2004 and paid deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- and license fee was fixed at Rs.4195/- per month. This OP has sublet the said refreshment room to the complainant by receiving an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as deposit and fixing the license fee Rs. 350/- per day for period of 11 months from 10.11.2008. The agreement titled as Upaguttige kararu patra produced by the complainant in respect of the said transaction clearly goes to show that the refreshment room which was taken by OP as a licensee, has sublet the same to the complainant. 5. Before completion of the period of 11 months; OP has forcibly removed the utensils from the refreshment room and locked the same, thereby preventing the complainant from making use of the said promises to run canteen. OP has not refunded the deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The dispute between the parties is that of tenant/ licensee and subtenant; the same is not a Consumer dispute amenable to the jurisdiction of this forum. The complainant can approach the proper forum seeking appropriate relief. The article produced with regard to Consumer Protection Act relating to Consumer and that if a person has availed services for is livelihood, the same is not for commercial purpose is not relevant for the purpose of this case. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following. O R D E R The complaint filed by the complainant dismissed as not maintainable. (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 27th day of May 2010.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT gm.

COMPLAINT FILED: 07-11-2009 DISPOSED ON: 27-05-2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 27TH MAY 2010 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.2620/2009 COMPLAINANT S. Vasanth Rao, C/o V.K. Nagesh, Social Worker, No.73 /47, Mandara, Ground Floor, 1st Main Road, K.G.S. Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore 40. In Person V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY G. Vittla Shetty, S/o. Late Venkatapp Shetty, BMTC Canteen, Durga fast food, KavalByrasandra. RT Nagar, Bangalore-32 Ex-Parte O R D E R SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT The complainant filed this complaint seeking direction against the OP to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and pay compensation of Rs.96,000/- for the mental agony and harassment with cost of litigation. In the complainant it is stated that the complainant has taken on lease Durga Upahar canteen at BMTC bus station KavalByrasandra of R T Nagar, Bangalore on daily rent of Rs. 350/- from OP and paid a amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as deposit on 10.11.2008. The lease period was of 11 months. When still a period of 8 months and a week was there for completion of the lease period, OP forcibly thrown out utensils and other articles from the canteen building and locked the same on 19.03.2009; without refunding deposit amount. Thus it is alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. OP has not furnished correct address; he is avoiding to meet the complainant. 2. The PA Holder of the complainant filed memo to issue notice by paper publication. Accordingly notice was issued. Earlier notice issued by registered post was returned as left. Inspite of paper publication OP failed to appear; hence placed ex-parte. 3. The PA Holder of the complainant had sent his affidavit evidence through post. The written arguments filed, the article published in Grahak Chaya regarding the Consumer Protection Act is produced; additional written arguments also sent by post. 4. From the documents produced it becomes clear that OP herein as a licensee executed agreement on 16.09.2004, in favour of licenser Chief Traffic Manager, BMTC, Central office, Bangalore; in respect of running refreshment room, at KavalByrasandra bus stand for a period of Six years commencing from 20.09.2004 and paid deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- and license fee was fixed at Rs.4195/- per month. This OP has sublet the said refreshment room to the complainant by receiving an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as deposit and fixing the license fee Rs. 350/- per day for period of 11 months from 10.11.2008. The agreement titled as Upaguttige kararu patra produced by the complainant in respect of the said transaction clearly goes to show that the refreshment room which was taken by OP as a licensee, has sublet the same to the complainant. 5. Before completion of the period of 11 months; OP has forcibly removed the utensils from the refreshment room and locked the same, thereby preventing the complainant from making use of the said promises to run canteen. OP has not refunded the deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The dispute between the parties is that of tenant/ licensee and subtenant; the same is not a Consumer dispute amenable to the jurisdiction of this forum. The complainant can approach the proper forum seeking appropriate relief. The article produced with regard to Consumer Protection Act relating to Consumer and that if a person has availed services for is livelihood, the same is not for commercial purpose is not relevant for the purpose of this case. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following. O R D E R The complaint filed by the complainant dismissed as not maintainable. (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 27th day of May 2010.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT gm.