Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/11/1864

Mr.S.K.Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.Guru Govinda,General Secretary, - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Dec 2011

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM (Principal)
8TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BWSSB BUILDING, BANGALORE-5600 09.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/1864
 
1. Mr.S.K.Das
C-24,Central Avenue,A-Area,ITI Colony,Doorvani Nagar,b'lore-560016
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED:10.10.2011.

        DISPOSED ON:28.12.2011

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

 

28th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011

 

  PRESENT :-  

 

           SRI. B.S. REDDY                                  PRESIDENT

           SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA                          MEMBER                   

           SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA                                  MEMBER

 

       COMPLAINT NO.1864/2011

                                 

Complainant

Mr.S.K.Das,

C-24, Central Avenue,

A-Area, ITI Colony,

Doorvani Nagar,

Bangalore-560 016.

 

Adv:Sri.A.Jayaprakash

 

V/s.

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1.Mr.Guru Govinda,

   General Secretary,

   M/s Ex-Servicemen Welfare    

   Organization, 2nd Floor,

   A & B Block,

   Ammiamma Complex,

   Linden Street, Austeen Town,

   Bangalore-560 047.

   Phone:25545778.

   Mob:9742328538.

 

2.Mr.M.Ningappa, President,

   M/s Ex-Servicemen Welfare   

   Organization,

   2nd Floor, A & B Block,

   Ammiamma Complex,

   Linden Street, Austeen Town,

   Bangalore-560 047.

   Phone:25545778.

   Mob:8553334861.

 

Placed Ex-parte.

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

Sri.B.S.REDDY,PRESIDENT

The complainant filed this complaint seeking direction against the Ops to refund an amount of Rs.1,42,560/- with interest and to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards expenses incurred on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

2.In spite of service of notice, OPs failed to appear, hence placed ex-parte.

3.In order to substantiate complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence.

4.Arguemnts heard from complainants side.

5.We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant. On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that OP1 is the Secretary and OP2 is the President of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Organization, the complainant applied for a site measuring 30 X 40 feet proposed to be formed in Indraprashta Defence Colony, Phase-I, White Field Road, Bangalore to Ex-Servicemen Welfare Organization on 31.03.2006 and deposited Rs.21,600/- confirmation letter was sent on 10.07.2006. Subsequently, the complainant deposited further sum of Rs.1,20,960/-. Since things were not moving as expected and promised, in the month of Sep-2009, the complainant requested OP1 to refund an amount of Rs.1,42,560/-, for which OP1 agreed and requested some time for settlement of the dues. On 03.03.2010, the complainant gave a request letter for settling his dues at the earliest. But Ops failed to settle the issue by refunding the amount. OP2 also assured that settlement would be made at the earliest, but till Nov-2010, the complainant could not get refund of the amount. On 27.01.2011, Ops issued cheque No.57106 for an amount of Rs.1,42,560/- with due date 03.05.2011. The complainant presented the said cheque, but the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. On 09.05.2011 the complainant gave 2nd request letter for settlement of his dues, intimating the cheque being dishonoured. Ops failed to refund the amount, the 3rd request letter was given on 13.09.2011 by the complainant but Ops have not responded for the same. Thus the complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and sought for refund of the amount.

 

6.There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced. Though Ops issued the cheque dt.03.05.2011 in favour of the complainant towards refund of the amount of Rs.1,42,560/- but the said cheque when presented was dishonoured as insufficient funds. The very fact of Ops remaining ex-parte leads to draw inference that Ops are admitting the claim of the complainant. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the act of Ops in not refunding the amount, amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant is entitled for refund of the amount with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

 

O R D E R

       

        The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

Ops are directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,42,560/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.

 Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of December 2011.)

                                                                                                   

 

 

MEMBER                            MEMBER                   PRESIDENT

Cs.

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.