Date of Filing: 15/11/2011
Date of Order: 16/12/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 16th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.2075 OF 2011
Mr. Vikas Kumar Modi,
Proprietor of
Goods Carrying Corporation,
Having office at # 15,
8th Cross, Siddaiah Road,
BANGALORE-560 027.
(Rep. by Sri.Gajendra.S, Advocate) …. Complainant.
V/s
M/s. Sai Auto World,
Rep. by Proprietor/Partner,
Sri. Raghu,
# 833, 24th Main, 10th Cross,
J.P. Nagar, 2nd Phase,
BANGALORE-560 078. …. Opposite Party.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.40,000, are necessary:-
The complainant paid Rs.40,000/- to the opposite party on 12.08.2010 for purchase of a second hand Maruthi Alto used car, but till date the opposite party has not given any Maruthi Alto Car to the complainant. The complainant issued notice to the opposite party on 20.08.2011 even then the opposite party failed to give the car hence the complaint.
2. In this case as some clarifications were required, the case was posted for hearing. On 23.11.2011 the complainant and his counsel were absent, the same is repeated on 24.11.2011, 28.11.2011, 03.12.2011, and on 12.12.2011. On 12.12.2011 the case was adjourned to today on payment of 250/- towards costs to be paid to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Even today neither the counsel for the complainant nor the complainant were present nor deposited the cost ordered nor any submission made. Hence perused the records.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether there is prima facie case of deficiency in service?
- What Order?
4. Our findings are:-
Point (A) & (B): As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
5. The entire grievance of the complainant is that he had paid certain amount to the opposite party for purchase of a second hand car, since opposite party is also a dealer of the 2nd hand used cars. The complainant has never stated which is the Alto Car? Which is the 2nd hand car? To whom it belonged to? To whom he has paid the amount? Who is the owner of the car? What is the registration number? Etc.,. The complaint is as bald as it could be.
6. Further the complainant has stated that he has issued a cheque to the opposite party. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that a particular cheque was given to the opposite party on a particular day, it was encashed by the opposite party, etc.,. Neither the pass book is produced nor a record is produced in this regard. Further the opposite party is not the owner of any car which the complainant wanted to purchase. The entire allegations revolves round on brokerage, if that were to be so what is the commission he has agreed to pay to the opposite party? There is no answer. Hence under these circumstances there is no justification to issue process to the opposite party. If there is cheating, the complainant is at liberty to move criminal court. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 16th Day of December 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
