Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for refund of Rs.42,150/- with interest against the Opposite party alleged deficiency in service. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 16.10.2007 one Mahesh a representative of the Opposite party met the complainant in Srinivasa Finance Office at Nagamangala Town and informed that they would provide loan, if the complainant intends to purchase a vehicle and loan could be cleared in installment. The complainant being villager for his livelihood, intended to purchase Alfha vehicle of Mahendra Company and informed to the agent of the Opposite party and on his information to deposit margin amount of Rs.42,150/- and the balance amount would be arranged for the vehicle purchase, the complainant purchased a D.D. for Rs.42,150/- on 16.10.2007 and paid the margin money through the agent of the Opposite party. Though the complainant met the Opposite party Institution to provide the vehicle, the Opposite party went on dragging on the matter, on one or other pretex delayed and even his request to refund the amount was not responded and Opposite party has illegally retained the said D.D. amount. Thereafter, he got issued a legal notice dated 28.02.2008, but the Opposite party has not responded. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The Opposite party was served with the notice and has filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint. It is pleaded that the complainant has remitted an amount of Rs.42,150/- to the account of one Sri.C.Prakash towards the amount due for which Opposite party has issued the receipt and even for the final settlement, one Mr.Kempe Gowda has remitted the money to the account of C.Prakash. The Opposite party agent has never approached the complainant nor promised of any financial assistance to him to purchase any vehicle. The complainant created a false complaint. The complainant has not produced documents, for having has deposited margin money, the Opposite party will not receive margin money and the dealer only insists the margin money and for remaining amount, the Opposite party will arrange the finance. The complainant in collusion with Sri.C.Prakash has filed this complaint to cheat the Opposite party. The Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and further the Office of the Opposite party satiated at Mysore City and complainant paid the amount to Mysore Office. Hence, the District Forum at Mandya has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trail, the Complainant is examined and Ex.C.1 to C.5 are marked. The representative of the Opposite party is examined as RW.1 and Ex.R.1 to R.7 are marked. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the complainant proves that he deposited Rs.42,150/- as margin money to purchase the vehicle with Opposite party or Opposite party proves that the complainant deposited the said amount to the loan account of one Sri.C.Prakash? 2) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3) Whether this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint? 4) What order? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINT No.1:- It is the case of the complainant that at the instance of the agent of the Opposite party, the complainant intending to purchase Alfa vehicle of Mahendra & Mahendra Company with Financial Assistance to be arranged by the Opposite party agent and to pay margin amount of Rs.42,150/-, he purchased a D.D. on 16.10.2007 and deposited through the agent, but the Opposite party has denied the same. The contention of the Opposite party is that the complainant never approached the agent of the Opposite party for purchase of the vehicle and there is no question of depositing of margin money with the Opposite party and in fact the complainant deposited D.D. amount of Rs.42,150/- to the loan account of Sri.C.Prakash and a receipt has been issued to the complainant and in collusion with one Sri.C.Prakash the false complaint is filed. 9. To prove his case, the complainant has filed a affidavit and produced the documents Ex.C.1 and C.2, C.3, C.4. the complainant has asserted in his evidence that he gave the D.D. to the agent of the Opposite party company as margin money for purchase of the vehicle. Of course, the complainant has produced the copy of the D.D. Ex.C.3 and he has produced a copy of the application for purchase of D.D. from Canara Bank, Nagamangala Branch as per Ex.C.4 & 3 and according to this, the complainant has purchased the D.D. in the name of the Opposite party on 16.10.2007. The receipt of the D.D. is not disputed by the Opposite party. The Opposite party has led in evidence that the complainant deposited D.D. to the vehicle loan account of one Sri.C.Prakash and a receipt has been issued to the complainant and Ex.R.1 is the duplicate receipt and the complainant has put signature. The Opposite party has also produced the account extract of loan account Mr.C.Prakash as per Ex.R.2. 10. Denying the case of the Opposite party, it is contended by the counsel for complainant that since the loan arrangement was not made the complainant gave a letter Ex.C.1 (28.12.2007) to return the amount and there was no response and even legal notice dated 28.02.2008 was issued and though served as per postal acknowledgment Ex.C.2(a), the Opposite party has not sent any reply. Therefore the case of the complainant has to be believed. On the other hand, the Opposite party has contended that receipt Ex.R.1 has been issued to the complainant when he deposited the D.D. and has put signature to receipt and that amount was credited to the account of Sri.C.Prakash on the same day and only after issue of NOC in favour of Sri.C.Prakash about the loan, the complainant colluding with Sri.C.Prakash has filed false complaint. 11. If we closely the analyse evidence and documents produced by both the parties, some important things emerge to accept the case of the Opposite party, because according to the complainant on 16.10.2007, the Mahesh agent of the Opposite party approached him in Srinivasa Finance Office at Nagamangala and persuaded to purchase the vehicle and they would provide the loan facility and on his information to deposit margin money of Rs.42,150/-, he purchased the D.D. on same day and handed over to the agent. But in the evidence he deposed that he did not visit Mahendra & Mahendra Showroom to enquire about the price of the Alfa vehicle, but he had enquired the field officer. When he enquired the field officer of Mahendra & Mahendra Motors and thereafter when he met the agent of the Opposite party finance is not forthcoming at all. The complainant has stated that is residing at a village and occupation is agriculture, but he has given a letter Ex.C.1 saying that on 16.10.2007 Mahesh of Opposite party came to the Srinivasa Finance Office of the complainant at Nagamangala Town and on the same day he issued D.D. to purchase the Mahendra Alfa Vehicle as margin amount. The complainant has not obtained any quotation from the Mahendra & Mahendra Motor Dealer to know the cost of the vehicle and to know the margin money. If Mahesh approached the complainant on 16.10.2007 and appraised him to provide loan facility for purchase of vehicle, if the complainant was willing so, without enquiring anywhere, whether it can be accepted that on the same day within 2 p.m. the complainant would purchase the D.D. and gave to the agent of the Opposite party without obtaining any receipt at all. The complainant is not a village illiterate, but he is a graduate and running Srinivasa Finance Agency at Nagamangala Town, but suppressed the same in his complaint and evidence. So, when the complainant is a graduate and deals in finance would not have issued a D.D. to the agent of the Opposite party without insisting upon any receipt. The complainant has not produced any documents that to purchase a vehicle, he had collected materials from the dealer and the model of the vehicle. Of course, the complainant has given a letter Ex.C.1 to the Opposite party in December 2007 as per Ex.C.1. In his evidence, the complainant has admitted that he enquired Opposite party Office about the deposit of D.D. and his explanation that the Manager contacted the agent and told that the field officer informed that he was out side and he would come and settle in next week. But in the cross-examination further he deposed that he went to Mysore and gave the D.D. It is pertinent to note that Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 receipt and the D.D. number and date given by the complainant is mentioned and according to the Opposite party, the complainant has put the signature to the receipt. When Ex.R.1 was confronted the complainant has denied the signature, but if we compare the signature available in Ex.R.1 with that of signature in his vakalath and the complaint they are tallying and similar. On the other hand, the complainant went to the extent of changing the signature in his affidavit. Therefore, the denial of signature in Ex.R.1 by the complainant cannot be accepted. Even his signature Ex.R.1 tallies with the signature in the letter Ex.C.1. Even though, the complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.C.2 dated 28.02.2008 and Opposite party has not replied, the explanation given by the officer of the Opposite party is to be accepted. The contention of the Opposite party is that in collusion with Sri.C.Prakash the complainant has created and filed a false complaint, though has deposited the D.D. amount to the account of Sri.C.Prakash. This contention is amply proved by the documents produced by the Opposite party. Sri.C.Prakash got issued a legal notice dated 17.01.2008 for claiming no due certificate and for this Opposite party sent Ex.R.6 stating that he is still due of Rs.43,878/-. Thereafter, that C.Prakash sent a letter Ex.R.4 on 05.02.2008 and sent D.D. for the said amount through one T.Kempegowda and Kempegowda deposited the same at Mysore Office on 05.02.2008 and obtained a receipt as per Ex.R.3 and thereafter Opposite party has issued no due certificate as per Ex.R.5 dated 16.02.2008. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 28.02.2008. Advocate who issued a legal notice on behalf of Sri.C.Prakash has issued legal notice to Opposite party on behalf of the complainant also. Therefore, it reveals that after closure of the loan account of C.Prakash, the complainant made up his mind to issue legal notice claiming refund of the amount only, on the ground, the D.D. was purchased his name, though it was deposited to the loan account of C.Prakash. Further, it reveals that C.Prakash was in the habit of depositing the loan amount through others like complainant and thereafter Kempegowda. The complainant has not whispered why he did not obtain any receipt for having deposited the amount with the Opposite party. Further, the evidence of the complainant that no receipt was issued cannot be accepted. When Ex.R.1 was issued the complainant has not questioned Opposite party as to why Ex.R.1 was issued in the name of C.Prakash, though he deposited the D.D. amount for purchase of the vehicle, though, he is a graduate and a finance dealer. Under these circumstances, the documents and the sequences clearly established that the complainant has failed to prove that he deposited the D.D. amount as margin money for purchase of the vehicle. On the other hand, Opposite party has proved that the complainant deposited the D.D. amount to the loan account of the C.Prakash which is manifest from the receipt Ex.R.1and Ex.R.2 account extract. Therefore, we answer the point in favour of the Opposite party. 12. POINT NO.2:- In view of our finding on point no.1 the complainant has failed to prove that the Opposite party has committed deficiency of service. Hence, we answer point no.2 in the negative. 13. POINT NO.3:- The Opposite party has taken the contention that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, on the ground that the complainant deposited the D.D. amount at Mysore and Ex.R.1 receipt was issued at Mysore. As per Ex.C.3 copy of the D.D., D.D. is payable at Mysore. The receipt Ex.R.1 has been issued on the same day of D.D. Further, in the evidence the complainant has admitted that he deposited the D.D. at Mysore. The complainant has not produced any documents to prove that alleged transaction took place at Nagamangala. Therefore, the facts clearly established that the cause of action has taken place at Mysore and therefore on the ground of jurisdiction also, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. 14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/- payable to the Opposite party. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 10th day of October 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
