Date of Filing: 20.12.2011

        Date of Order: 16.1.2012

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  16^th DAY OF January-2012

PRESENT

SRI. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SMT.NIVEDITHA. J, B.SC., LLB., MEMBER

C.C. NO.2322 OF 2011

Sri Nanjappa.C.alias Nanjegowda,

S/o Late Chikkasiddaiah,

Aged about 37 years,

Proprietor of Sri Lakshmi Enterprises,

R/o 229, 1^st Block,

Nagarabhavi 2^nd Stage,

Opp to Bhagavan Buddha Law Hostel,

Kottegepalya,

BANGALORE - 560 191.             

(Rep. by Sri.Ramesh Kumar.R.V, Advocate)                                     ….COMPLAINANT

- V/s -

1.Motherson Zanotti Refrigeration Systems Ltd,

B-66, Sector, Phase-1,

Gautham Budh Nagar(UP),

(Represented by Managing Director)

2. Motherson Zanotti Refrigeration Systems Ltd,

#905,B Wing,Mittal Tower,

Mahatma Gandhi Road,

BANGALORE - 560 001                                 ….OPPOSITE PARTIES

ORDER

BY SMT. NIVEDITHA  J – MEMBER -

     The brief antecedents that led to filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation, are necessary:-

The complainant in order to earn his livelihood, has set up business in the nature of distribution of ice cream and also selling of cold drinks.  The 2^nd opposite party being the Area Manager on behalf of 1^st opposite party has approached the complainant for providing refrigeration system. Accordingly he booked for refrigeration System from the opposite parties on 8/3/2010; the sale price of said system was Rs.4,10,060/- and paid Rs.2,00,000/- as advance to the opposite parties.  Thereafter, the opposite parties have delivered only few materials.  The complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties to deliver the system, but the opposite parties have failed to install, even after lapse of 10 months from the date of payment.  Hence, the complaint.

2.       The matter was posted for hearing on 28/12/2011, 02/01/2012, 06/01/2012 on payment of costs even on. None of these days neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared.  Hence perused the records.

3.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether there is prima facie case to issue process to the opposite parties?
2.  What Order?

4.       Our findings are:-

Point (A):   In the Negative.

Point (B):   As per detailed order

                   for the following :- 

REASONS

Points (A) & (B):

5.       The complainant is carrying a business of distribution of ice cream and also selling of cold drinks at Bellary town.  The contention of the complainant is that, the 2^nd opposite party as an Area Manager has approached the complainant for providing Refrigeration System and the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 23.03.2010 and 20.07.2010 to the opposite parties as advance.  The complainant has failed to disclose the name of that area Manager and also not produced any receipt to show that he has paid Rs.2,00,000/- as advance on a particular date and time.  The 2^nd opposite party is not Area Manager, who is representing 2^nd opposite party is not stated.  Under law a limited company has to be served making its Managing Director or Company Secretary as party.  But that has not been done.  Then how to issue process?  How the first opposite party is responsible for this? There is no answer.  In spite of adjourning the case on several occasions and on payment of costs even the complainant never bothered to look in to the matter.  Hence under these circumstances there is no justification to issue process to the opposite parties.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:- 

ORDER

1. The complaint is dismissed for non-maintainable.

2.  Return the extra sets filed by the complainant as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulation-2005

(Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16^th DAY OF JANUARY-2012.)

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT