Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/6/2014

Babu M Masannawar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director of Guru Teak Investment (Mysore) Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.R.Angadi.

17 Dec 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

: ORDER :

          The complainant has filed the complaint against Opponent U/s. 12 of C.P. Act alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of fixed deposit.

          2) Inspite of service of notice O.P. remained absent. Hence placed ex-parte.

          3) In support of the claim of the complainant, complainant has not filed his affidavit by way of evidence and not produced original F.D.R.,.

          4) We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

Point No.1 :- Now the point for our consideration is that whether this Consumer Forum got jurisdiction try this case ?

Point No.2 :- Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and entitled to the reliefs sought?

5) Finding on the points No.1 and 2 are in Negative, for the following reasons.

:: REASONS ::

        6) On perusal contents of the complaint, the complainant invested amount of Rs.50,000/- only fixed deposit at Belgaum branch and in turn opponent has executed an agreement on 2/2/2006 promising to repay an amount of Rs.56,500/- and further stated that he approached Chairman and Managing Director opponent company at Bangalore for more than 6 times and opponent went on giving false promises and again complainant had sent one of his friend Mr. Dhotar Retired Engineer to Bangalore. Opponent explained his usual difficulties and has issued an acknowledgement on 12/12/2012 for an amount of Rs.95,500/- and has given due dates from 2/2/2007 to 2/2/2013. The complainant has spent more than Rs.10,000/- for his travelling to Bangalore. Inspite of that opponent did not pay the amount to the complainant. Hence complainant constrained to file this complaint against opponent.

          7) I like to answer point No.1 on jurisdiction point. On perusal document produced by the complainant, agreement executed between complainant and opponent on 2/2/2006 at Bangalore. Opponent had issued cheque at Bangalore and also acknowledgement issued by the opponent at Bangalore. The opponent is residing at Bangalore. This forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. On the count only complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.

          8) The complainant has not produced affidavit by way of evidence except document. The complainant has not produced any document to prove his case without support of evidence of complainant and he cannot prove his case only document. The document produced by the complainant is not supported by the evidence. Even there are no other circumstances to support the case of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opponent.

          9) Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove the alleged deficiency of service by the opponent and hence we answer points No.1 and 2 are negative and pass the following;

: ORDER :

                   The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

           (Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 17^th day of December 2015).

          Member                    Member                    President.

gm*