Orissa

Rayagada

CC/60/2016

Sri Narendra Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD/CEO, Axis Survey Kunai Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Self

19 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 60 / 2016.                                Date.       19 .2. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu, .                             Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Sri Narandra Naik, S/O: Ghanu Naik, At:Haradaveta, Po:Natikiguda, Via:Tikiri,       Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, Axis Survey, Vill/Po:Kunalibanka,  Dist:Hoogly State: West Bengal.

2. The Chief Executive  Officer, Utkal Alumina International Ltd., Doraguda, Dist: Rayagada.

3.Sri Raja Babu (Site Incharge) Axis Survey, Kunalibanda, Dist: Hooghilly, State: West Bengal.

.                                                                                                           .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.P 1 & 3:- Set  exparte.

For the O.P. No.2:- Sri N.K.Das & Sri  P. Ch.  Das, Advocate, Rayagada.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non payment  a sum of  Rs.1,26,000/- towards hire charges  of Ambassador Car Regd. No. OR-02T 8844  for the period from March, 2015 to December,2015  as per agreement Rs.14,000/- per month.

       On being noticed  to the O.P. No. 1 & 3   returned with a postal remarks  which has  recorded by the postal authority in the postal cover i.e. “Not known returned to sender”.  Hence the O.P. 1 & 3 are set exparte under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the  C.P. Act.

       The O.P. No.2 appeared through their learned counsel and filed their written version and contended that the case is not maintainable against the O.P. No.2 as the facts  as stated in para-3 of the complaint petition on his own complainant  stated there has been no relationship between the complainant and the O.P. No.2.  The O.P further  contended that  the averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.P No.2   deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.P No.2  taking other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable.  The  O.P. No.2 prays  the  forum the above proceedings be dropped against the O.P. No.2.

 Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  O.P No.2 .    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  learned counsel for the O.P. No.2  advanced their arguments and  vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                           FINDINGS.

On perusal of the  record this forum observed the notice has sent to the  1 & 3  returned with a postal remarks  which has  recorded by the postal authority in the postal cover i.e. with a remarks addressee  not known returned to sender” as the service is not sufficient.  Again the complainant directed to give proper address of the O.Ps  but the complainant  did not turn up  this  forum to give  correct address so as to enable  this forum to  serve the notice a fresh to the  O.Ps 1 and  3 for appearance and to file written version.  This forum presumed  that the complainant has not interested to proceed the case  further.

Further the O.P. No. 2 contended in their written version that  the O.P. No.1 is a company which was doing  survey work and it took up survey assignments under the O.P. No.2 under  its agreement dtd. 11.7.2014. The O.P.No.1   had  completed  its work and   had  taken  final payment on Dt. 30.10.2015 without leaving  any  balance or security  money.  Again the O.P.No.2  contended that  he had  not known  about any contract agreement and the money  transaction between the complainant and   O.P. No.1 also  not assured   to pay Rs.1,26,000/- to the complainant when the said company shifted from the site of the O.P.No.2.

This forum completely agreed with the version of the O.P.No. 2.

  So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

ORDER.

            In  resultant the complaint petition is hereby  dismissed for default. Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is disposed off.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this         19  ^th.   Day of   February,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President