Date of Filing:25/03/2011
Date of Order:13/04/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 13th DAY OF APRIL 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.602 OF 2011
Mr. Sunil Kumar,
Aged About 39 years,
S/o. R. Manjappa Shetty,
R/at: No.4, Sri Sathya Sai Complex,
Hoody, ITPL Road,
Bangalore-560 048.
…. Complainant.
V/s
Sri. Parthasarathy Vasanth,
Rep. by G.P.A. Holder:
Smt. Geetha P. Vasanth,
W/o. Parthasarathy Vasanth,
Aged About 45 years,
R/at: 2nd Floor, Raghavendra Apartments,
Near Bageecha Bar & Restaurant,
Kundalahalli Gate, HAL to Whitefield
Main Road, Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
…. Opposite Parties
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The complainant has made this complaint is made U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking recovery of Rs.11,58,500/- with interest @ 18% pa from 10.02.2011 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the opposite party making certain allegations.
2. On 02.04.2011 neither the complainant nor his counsel were present. Hence the case was adjourned to 07.04.2011. On which date also the history repeated. Today that is on 13.04.2011 in the morning one counsel on behalf of the complainant was present. Hence the case was kept by. Later neither the complainant nor the counsel were present. Hence perused the records.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether there is any relationship of consumer and the trader between the complainant and the opposite party respectively?
- What Order?
4. Our findings are:-
Point (A) : In the Negative
Point (B) : As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
5. Reading the entire complaint in conjunction with the documents produced by the complainant it is needless to say that it is the opposite party who has engaged the services of the complainant for a consideration of construction of his building and the complainant was a trader and the opposite party was a consumer and not the relationship Vise-versa.
6. It is in this regard the complainant says that as per the agreement dated: 17.03.2010, he has received the money for the construction work done; but as he has constructed other parts of the building, about seven square foot in excess he is charging at 50% less on the agreed rate i.e., the agreed rate is Rs.1,15,000/- per square foot, but in this case he is charging 50% and hence he wants that money. This is a Civil dispute where the complainant has to prove additional work, what is the additional work he had done? Whether the opposite party has agreed for it? Had agreed to pay at the same rate as demanded by the complainant? All these has to be decided in the Civil Court with elaborate evidence and scrutiny of each and every document. That cannot be done by this Forum which has a limited jurisdiction of summery trial.
7. Even otherwise the opposite party is a consumer and not the complainant. The opposite party has engaged the services of complainant to build his building for a price. Hence if any deficiency in service is there it is on the part of the complainant and in that regard the opposite party can file a complaint and not the complainant since he is a trader. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
-: ORDER:-
- The Complaint is Dismissed.
- Return the complaint and all the documents filed by the complainant.
- Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
- 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 13th Day of April 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
