COMPLAINT FILED: 26-02-2009<br /> DISPOSED ON:12-08-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 12TH AUGUST2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.483/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT G.R.Gopalkrishna,S/o.Sri.G.S.Ramakrishna,Aged 31 Years, Representing: Srikanteshwara Enterprises, No.1377, Ashoknagar,Kathriguppe Main Road,Banashankari 1st Stage,Bangalore – 560 050.Advocate – Sri.M.Bhaskar JoisV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s.G.E.India Exports Pvt.Ltd,No.11, Brigade Terrace,Cambridge Road,Ulsoor,Bangalore – 560 008.Represented by itsChief Financial Officer/ManagerAdvocate – Sri.S.D.N.Prasad<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> 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 pay a compensation of Rs.2,04,801/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant being an unemployed youth started the business in the name and style “SriKanteshwara Enterprises” and providing the vehicle to the company like OP. OP entered into the agreement with the complainant and thereafter suddenly without intimating the complainant OP stopped taking service of the vehicle belonging to the complainant. Thereby caused the breach of the terms of the agreement. For no fault of the complainant he is made to suffer both mental agony and finance loss. Unilateral act of the OP in terminating the service amounts to deficiency in service. The repeated request and demands made by the complainant to continue the cab service went in futile. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is not a consumer as defined under the act. He has not availed the service of the OP as contemplated. As per the maintenance and operation agreement dated 01-04-2006. OP kept up its promise which was only up to 31-12-2006. After the lapse of the said contract it has not renewed it. Complainant cannot insist for the renewal of the said contract at his whim and fancy. The other allegation made by the complainant are false and baseless. Whatever the amount due to the complainant is paid by the OP. Approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. Complaint is barred by time. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant and OP entered into the maintainance and operational agreement with respect to providing the cab to OP on rental basis on 01-04-2006. The fact that the said agreement was valid up to 31-12-2006 is also not at dispute. Another fact is that OP has paid all the amount due to the complainant in using of the cab provided by the complainant. Of course the renewal of the said agreement is at the sole discretion of the OP. Complainant cannot insist for the renewal of the said agreement. We find force in the defence of the OP in that regard. <br /> <br /> 8. On the perusal of the complaint averments complainant himself cannot claim as a consumer as defined under the act. He only extended the cab service to the OP. He has not avalied the services of the OP. Under such circumstance he cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. Merely because of stopped using of cab service in our view it will not attract the provision of the C.P. Act. The allegation of deficiency in service appears to be bald and baseless. We find force in the defence of the OP that the present complaint is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 9. Of course OP has taken up a contention that the complaint is barred by time. We do not find force in the said contention because complaint accured the cause of action in the year 2008 by causing the legal notice and this complaint is filed in the year 2009. The other allegation of the complainant appears to be baseless that too with regard to the availment of a loan from the Bank to run his business. It is for him to clear the loan and pay interest. <br /> <br /> 10. When OP is not interested in taking the cab of complainant on rent, OP is not liable to pay any loss in the business incurred by the complainant. The other claim of the complainant with regard to FC, taxes, keeping the vehicle in good condition etc., also appears to be irrelevant viewed from any angle complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence, complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 12th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br /> <br />