Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/1359/2008

K.Vijaya Viswanath - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Viniv Inc., Souharda Society, - Opp.Party(s)

IP

30 Jun 2008

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1359/2008

K.Vijaya Viswanath
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/s. Viniv Inc., Souharda Society,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

30/06/2008 Complainant/s By:- IP Opposite Party:- Perused the complaint and the documents. Admittedly, the complainant has paid Rs.25,200/- to the opposite party on 6/9/2004. A receipt of the opposite party has been produced. This receipt discloses that it is a donation receipt. By going through the complainant allegations, deficiency in service on the party of the opposite party has not been pleaded. The complainant has sought refund of the amount with interest. This kind of relief cannot be granted. The complainant cannot convert District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as a Civil Court. Without there being any allegation of deficiency in service the complaint under the C.P Act cannot be entertained. Admittedly, the complainant has produced receipt dated 15th September-2004 U/Sec.24(A) of C.P. Act 1986. District Forum shall not admit complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The complainant has approached with this complaint after more than 3 years 8 months. Therefore, on the part of limitation also the complaint is not maintainable and same cannot be entertained. The opposite party in this case is in Judicial Custody. He is said to have been lodged in Central Prison. So, many complaints and cases are filed against him. The Police have seized authority of the opposite party if at all the complainant to get any relief she may file complaint to the Police and Policy may take suitable and proper action as per law, but as regards the complaint before this Forum no relief could be granted to the complainant on the face of it the complaint is not maintainable and same is deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 1. The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. 2. Send the copy of this Order to the complainant free of costs immediately. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT