CC Filed on 01.09.2010
Disposed on 11.04.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 11th day of April 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 169/2010
Between:
Sri. C. Muniswamy, S/o. Dodda Chowdappa, Aged about 65 years, R/o. KariyapalliVillage, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk. Now residing at MatnahallyVillage, Sugatoor Hobli, Kolar Taluk. (By Advocate Sri. C.R. Krishna Murthy & others ) V/S 1. Kamadhenu Motors, M.B. Road, Near K.E.B Power Station, Bye-Pass, KolarCity. 2. Sri. Venkatesha Gowda, Field Officer, Kamadhenu Motors, M.B. Road, Near K.E.B Power Station, Bye-Pass, KolarCity. | ….Complainant |
3. The State Bank of Mysore, Srinivasapur Branch, Srinivaspura. | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party No. 1 and 2 to supply certain materials worth Rs.1,60,000/- which were agreed to be sold, but not supplied or to pay its value and also for replacing the old tractor now supplied with new Tractor of the description free from any defect, etc.,
2. The complainant has not filed any relevant documents in support of his allegations made in the complaint. All the OPs had remained absent during the trial and when the case was posted for orders OP.3 appeared through Advocate and filed version with certain relevant documents. The said version and documents are received condoning the delay in filing the same.
3. On going through the documents produced by OP.3 we found that the allegations made in the complaint are not based after scrutiny of the relevant documents, but they are made according to the whims and fancies of complainant may be only on the basis of his memory. The complainant is required to make effort to get the relevant documents before drafting the complaint. Even if he is not in possession of those relevant documents he should try to obtain the copies of it from the persons who might be in possession of another set of similar documents. In the present case, the complainant could have got the relevant documents from OP.1 or atleast from OP.3. There is no documentary evidence that OP.1 or OP.3 did not supply the documents demanded by complainant relating to his transaction.
4. The relief claimed is against OP No.1 and 2. They remained absent. They might have thought that the complainant could not prove the facts alleged in the complaint by leading proper evidence, therefore they might have remained absent. During argument it was pointed out to complainant that he should have produced the documents relating to his transaction alleged in the complaint. The documents produced by OP.3 who is the Financer shows that the complainant had paid in all Rs.6,50,713/- to OP.1 for purchase of Tractor, Trailer and other agricultural implements. The averment in the complaint shows that he had booked the above said goods for Rs.7,45,000/-. The complainant should show that he had paid this much of amount to OP.1. But complainant has not produced any documentary evidence for proving the payment of the said amount. Therefore we hold that the allegations made in the complaint must have been based only on the feeble memory of complainant. In such state of affairs we cannot decide the grievances of complainant alleged in the complaint. We think the complainant may be directed to file fresh complaint, if so advised for agitating his grievances after collecting the proper documents. At any rate we think the complainant cannot be granted any relief on the basis of the present records, even if OP No.1 and 2 remained absent. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed with the above observations. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 11th day of April 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
