<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.04.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 31.08.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 31ST AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.982/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt.A.K.SudhansuS/o. Suresh Sharma,Aged 39 years,Occupation – Service in I.A.F.Serving at Command Hosptial,Air force, Ulsoor,Bangalore –560 008.Advocate – Sri.Chandrajeet YadavV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY G.C.Pentesh Kumar,Aged about 46 years,R/at No.35,4th Cross,Saraswathi Puram Extn.25 Feet Road, Ulsoor,Bangalore – 560 008.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.2,90,000/-and refund lease amount and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant took property belonging to the OP on lease for an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- under the agreement dated 10-12-2007. When complainant took possession of the said property there were certain defects in the said premises with regard to sewage water entering kitchen, damped walls, rain water going into room and detoriated condition of the roof. Complainant immediately brought the said defects to the notice of the OP and requested OP to rectify the same. But his efforts went in vain. Complainant even caused a legal notice on 17-02-2009. Again there was no response. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Due to the carelessness and negligence of the OP complainant and his family members suffered health hazards. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. The said notices were returned as not claimed. The service was held sufficient. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bonafide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of the complainant that he took the premises belonging to OP on lease as per the lease agreement dated 10-12-2007 and paid Rs.2,10,000/-. When he went to occupy the said premises he noticed certain defect with regard to sewage water entering in to kitchen, damped walls, rain water coming into the room and detoriated condition of the roof. He immediately contacted the OP and informed him about the defect. Though he made several correspondence and personal request to OP to rectify the said defect, it went in vain. Then he caused legal notice on 17-02-2009, copy of the legal notice, lease agreement are produced. <br /> <br /> 6. What made the complainant keep mum right from 10-12-2007 to 17-02-2009 without asserting his rights and without moving law into motion is not known. On the reading of the complainant dispute is with regard to the lease of the premises and defect in the said premises. If that is so, complainant has to approach the jurisdictional court or tribunal as contemplated. But some how he has chosen to file the complaint before this Fora.<br /> <br /> 7. When we go through the averments made in the complaint there is no proof of avaliment of the service as contemplated under C.P. Act for consideration. When that is so, the question of deficiency in services does not arise. Whole of the dispute does not appears to be a consumer dispute as defined. Merely because OP has not appeared and contested the matter that itself does not mean the complainant is entitled for the blanket order. <br /> <br /> 8. To have relief under C.P. Act the complainant is to establish the avaliment of the service for consideration and then deficiency in service and existence of the consumer dispute as defined under C.P. Act. In our view complainant has failed in his attempts complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. If he is so, advised he can approach the Civil Court or Tribunal as case may be to redress his grievances. With these reasons we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of July 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> nrs<br /> <br />