C.C filed on : 15/02/2016

Disposed on:21.09.2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, TUMKUR

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF SEPTEMBER –  2016

C.C. NOs. 35/2015, 36/2015, 38/2015 & 39/2015  OF 2016

:PRESENT:

SMT. PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT, BAL LLM.

SRI. D. SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A. LLB,  MEMBER

SMT. GIRIJA, B.A. LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANT/S:

Giriyamma W/o Ramanjineyalu,

Near Muthalyamma Temple,

Sira Road, Pavagada,

Tumkur District.

……………C.C.No.35/2015

R. Sathya Narayana Rao S/o R.Krishna Rao

Bramhin Street,  Pavagad Town, Pavagada,

Tumkur District.

……………C.C.Nos.36/2015

N.Padma W/o Mettabandappa,

H.No.11-49, Teru Veedi,

Madakasira Town, Madakasira(TQ),

Ananthapur(Dist.), Andra Pradesh(ST) - 515 301

Present Address: Behind Muthyalamma Temple,

Sira Road, Pavagada Town, Tumkur District.

……………C.C.Nos.38/2015

P.T.Venkatesha S/o Late Thimmaiah,

H.No.11-49, Teru Veedi, Behind Muthyalamma Temple,Sira Road, Pavagada Town,

Tumkur District.

……………C.C.Nos.39/2015

(OP By Sri/Smt. C.R.Padmashree -  Advocate)

-V/s-

OPPOSITE PARTY/IES

1.     Kumar V. S/o Appala Naidu

        Branch Manager,

        Maithri Plantation & Horticulture(P) Limited

        Kothapalyam, Boddapalli Mandal,

        Vijayanagara District – 535221.

2.     Madava Reddy .L S/o Malakondareddy,

        Director, Maithri Plantation & Horticulture(P)

        Limited, #5-37(1), Master’s Mansion,

        Opp. Power Office, Kurnool Road,

        Ongole, Prakasam(Dist), Andhra Pradesh State.

3.     L.Mallyadari Reddy S/o Malakonda Reddy,

        A/a 40 years, Execcutive Officer,

        Maithri Plantation & Horticulture(P) Limited,

        #5-47, ‘A” 1^st Line, N.G.O. Colony,

        Kurnool Road, Ongole, Prakasam(Dist),

         Andhra Pradesh State.

4.     Muralidhara E.S. S/o E. Srinivasa Shetty,

        Maithri Plantation & Horticulture(P) Limited,

        Sri. Srinivasa Enterprises, Opp. Police Station,

        Pavagada.

5.     D.Rajendra S/o Dasappa, Senior Agent,

        Maithri Plantation & Horticulture (P) Limited,

        A/a 35 Years, Behind Jnanabodini Schook,

        Pavagada.

 (OP No.1 By Sri/Smt. N.Ramakrishna -  Advocate)

(OP Nos. 2 & 4  – Dismissed)

(OP Nos. 3 & 5 – Ex-parte)

:C O M M O N O R D E R:

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA. R.K. -  PRESIDENT

The facts involved in both the cases since almost similar on material aspects and the Ops are one and the same and hence this common order is passed in the above both cases for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.

2.     The complainants have filed the respective complaints Under Section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986 against the OPS alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the OPS.

The brief facts of the complaints are that:-

On the assurance of the OPS that sites will be given to the complainants after five years under different survey Nos. situated at Bhagenahalli, Billichodu Hobli, Jagaluru Taluk, Davanagere District if the complainants made onetime payment. The complainants have deposited the amount with the OPS as follows:-

After payment, the complainants came to know that the OP No.1 is not running the office properly. Therefore the complainants enquired with the OP No.2 with regard to sites, but the OP No.2 has given neglected answer by saying that the site will be allotted. 

        The complainants further submitted that the cause of action starts on 16/01/2015 when they visited to the office of the OPS and came to know about the closing of the office.  The complainants further submit that after completion of the period, the OPS have neither allotted the site nor given their money back as assured by the OPS and thereby the OPS have committed deficiency of service and therefore the complainants have filed these complaints with a request to direct the OPS to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards monetary loss and mental agony and further requested to direct the OPS to pay the deposited amount with the OPS or the sites as assured by the OPS.  

        On service of notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed his version.  The OP 3 & 5 refused to take notice and therefore the OP Nos. 3 & 5 have placed Ex-parte.  The complainant has not taken steps against OP Nos. 2 & 4 in spite of sufficient opportunities given to the complainants.  Hence, OP Nos. 2 & 4 treated as Dismissed.

        In the version, the OP No.1 has denied all the averments made in the complaint in toto.   The OP No.1 further submitted that the OP No.1 is only a salary based employee of the OP Nos. 2 & 3 and working as per the instructions and guidelines of OP Nos. 2 & 3.

        The OP No.1 further submitted that the OP Nos. 2 & 3 have terminated him more than two years back and as such the OP No.1 is in no way connected to the said company.  The OP No.1 further submitted that as per the instruction of the Management the OP No.1 has discharged his duty and the OP No.1 has in no way contact with the complainants or any other persons. 

        The OP No.1 further submitted that the complainants have filed civil suit before the Civil Court at Pavagada in O.S. No.32/2014 with regard to same matter and as such the complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum is not maintainable and the complaint filed by the complainant is not within the jurisdiction of this Forum and as such on this count also the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and that among other grounds it was requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.

        The complainants have filed their affidavit evidence in support of their case.  In spite of giving sufficient opportunities, the OP No.1 has not filed his affidavit evidence.  The complainant in complaint No.36/2015 has marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P13.  The complainant in complaint No.37/2015 has marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P13.  The complainant in complaint No.38/2015 has marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P15.  The complainant in complaint No.39/2015 has marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P15.  Both parties have not addressed their arguments though sufficient time was granted to address their arguments.  Hence, posted the cases for orders.

5.     Based on the above materials, the following issues will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPS as alleged by the complainant?

2. What Order?

  6.   Our answer to the above issues are as under:-

Issue No (1)       :       In the Negative

Issue No (2)       :       As per final order below

:R E A S O N S:

Issue Nos. (1) & (2):-

7.     The complainants alleged that the OPS neither allotted the sites nor given the money to the complainants.  Hence, the complainants filed these complaints alleging deficiency of service on the part of OPS.

8.     On the contrary, the OP No.1 appeared and filed an objection stating that he is an employee in the OP Nos. 2 & 3’s Company and he is working as per the instructions and guidelines of the OP Nos. 2 & 3.  The OP No.1 further submitted that the OP Nos. 2 & 3 have terminated him for more than two years back and as such he is no way concerned with Maithri Plantation and Horticulture (P) Ltd.  The OP No.1 further submitted that the complainants have filed civil suits before the Civil Judge Court at Pavagada in O.S.No.332/2014 on the same subject matter.  Hence, the complaints filed by the complainant are not maintainable before this Forum.

9.     On perusal of the entire record, it is seen that the OP No.1 is an Employee of Maithri Plantation and Horticulture (P) Ltd.  The OP No.2 is the Director and OP No.3 is an Executive Officer and OP Nos. 4 & 5 are the agents of Maithri Plantation and Horticulture (P) Ltd.  Further, it is seen that the complainants failed to take steps against complaint Nos.2 & 4 and hence the case against OP Nos. 2 & 4 was dismissed.  Further, it is seen that the OP No.3 is an Executive Officer and OP No.5 is an Agent.  On perusal of the documents produced by the complainants it is seen that the entire document pertaining to the Maithri Plantation and Horticulture (P) Ltd. and these OPS have not assured to give the sites to the complainants and they are just employees of the Maithri Plantation and Horticulture (P) Ltd.  Hence, the complainant cannot claim any remedy against these OPS for their grievance.

10.   Further, the OP No.1 contended that the complainants have filed the complaints before the Civil Court at Pavagada on the same matter and hence the complaints filed by the complainants before this Forum are not maintainable.  On this count also the complaints filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-      

: O R D E R:

1. The complaint Nos. 35/2015, 36/2015, 38/2015 & 39/2015 are hereby dismissed.  Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

2.     The original of this order shall be kept in complaint No.35/2015 and a copy thereof shall be kept in C.C.Nos.36/2015, 38/2015 and 39/2015.

3.     Supply free order copy to the parties. 

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, then corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st Day of  SEPTEMBER 2016).

LADY MEMBER              MEMBER                   PRESIDENT