Date of Filing: 29/09/2011

        Date of Order:31/10/2011

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

Dated:  31^st DAY OF OCTOBER 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.1822 OF 2011

Prof. K. Venkata Rao,

Aged 63 years, S/o.E.Krishnamurthy,

R/at: No.449, 24^th Main, 8^th Cross,

HSR First Secotr, Agara,

Bangalore-560 102.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri.S.Mruthyunjaya)                                  ….  Complainant.

V/s

(1) M.S.R. Computer,

No.114/2, 2^nd Floor, Vivek Complex,

S.P. Road, Bangalore-560 002.

(2) Smart Tech Solutions,

No.543, 24^th Main, 7^th Cross,

HSR First Sector, Agara,

Bangalore-560 102.                                                       …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The complainant has made this complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.6,58,500/- making certain allegations.

2.       As the matter required certain arguments the matter was posted to 12.10.2011, 15.10.2011, 18.10.2011, 20.10.2011 and 24.10.2011 on payment of costs even neither complainant nor his counsel were present on any date of hearing.  Hence perused the records.

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

:- POINTS:-

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

4.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B)         :           As per the final Order

                                       for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

5.       The complainant has simply made the parties stated above as parties to this proceeding.  The complainant never stated whether the opposite parties are private limited company, public limited company, proprietorship concern, or partnership concern.  Further the complainant never stated who is representing the opposite parties whether it is being represented by the Manager, Managing Director, Proprietor, Managing Partner, partner, or company secretary.

6.       According to the document “service call report” it is one Maha Electronics Private Limited and Escalation Matrix are the parties, but those two persons are not the parties to the proceedings why?  There is no answer.  Anyway it means the opposite parties and the other parties are the private limited company.  Any private limited company has to be represented by the Managing Director or the company’s secretary or any other person authorized by the company has to represent the company.  Hence this Forum had given sufficient opportunity to the complainant to seek amendment of the complaint to incorporate proper and necessary parties to the proceeding, but the complainant failed to take advantage of the said thing.  Hence under these circumstances there is no justification to issue process to any of the opposite parties if the complainant is advised, if he is entitled to, he can make fresh complaint regarding same cause of action incorporating proper and necessary parties.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Dismissed.
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 31^st Day of October 2011)

MEMBER                                                MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT