BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE                       

Dated this the 22^nd May 2017

PRESENT

   SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.230/2016

(Admitted on 28.06.2016)

E. Subramanya Bhat,

Aged 45 years,

Shree Associates,

Puttur Centre Building,

Puttur Taluk, D.K.

                                                                           ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri SD)

VERSUS

Puttur City Municipal Council,

Represented by its

Commissioner,

Puttur, D.K.

                                                           …..............OPPOSITE PARTY

(Opposite Party: Ex Parte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

          The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The case of complainant is by paying Rs.44 he has kept a name board of the business  Shree Associates  in the parking place of Puttur Centre building.   On 14.1.2016 without any notice or prior intimation to the complainant the men of opposite party removed the name board which the complainant was keeping in the morning and removing in the evening and there is no reply by opposite parties despite legal notice.  Hence seeks relief claimed in the complaint.

2. Despite serving version notice remained absent and placed Ex parte.

3.     In support of the above complaint Mr. E. Subramanya Bhat filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C8 as detailed in the annexure here below.   On behalf of the opposite parties not appeared and not filed any evidence. 

4.      In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2.  If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

     The learned counsel for complainant filed notes of arguments.  We have considered entire case filed on record including evidence tendered by party.   Our findings on the points are as under follows:

               Point No. (i) : Negative

               Point No. (ii) : Negative

               Point No. (iii) : As per the final order.

REASONS

5.      POINTS No. (i) & (ii):   Complainant produced the receipt issued purported by the Puttur town municipality for Rs.44 showing it to be the ground rent for the advertisement board for 2015.16. The assessment /paid as seen from is mentioned as PID 01 and there is mention as paid by Axis Bank Ltd Puttur Branch on 25^th August 2015.  There is no mention made either in the receipt issued by opposite party to complainant and there is also no document produced to show that opposite party granted a licence to complainant for putting that advertisement board in front of the shop at City Centre at Puttur.  Merely showing a document for the deposit of certain amount at the bank.   As a licence granted by opposite party for keeping that advertisement board in the parking area.  In the absence of such licence granted PID by opposite party statutory authority to complainant at no stretch of imagination.  In our view a receipt issued by the bank for a deposit of amount cannot be termed as a licence granted to complainant for keeping advertisement board in the car parking area. 

6.     In the notes of argument for complainant it was pointed out that the board will not cause any harm or obstacles is no justification for grant of the relief to complainant. Even according to complainant the advertisement board has been put by him is not a permanent fixture. As such the contention raised for complainant that no notice was issued to him before removal of the board is no ground for allowing the complaint.  Therefore the complaint is devoid of merits and there being no relationship of consumer and service provider established by the complainant hence and thereby being no justification to allow the complaint.   Hence we answer both the points in negative.

 7.     POINTS No. (iii):     Wherefore the following

ORDER

                              The complaint is dismissed.

       Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 5 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 22^nd May 2017)

              MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

       (LAVANYA M. RAI)                        (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

  D.K. District Consumer Forum               D.K. District Consumer Forum

             Mangalore.                                            Mangalore.

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. E Subramanya Bhat

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 25.08.2015: Copy of the Receipt for payment of license  

Ex.C2: 14.01.2016: Copy of the letter given by the complainant to the opposite party

Ex.C3: 22.01.2016: Copy of the letter given by the complainant to the D.C

Ex.C4: 14.01.2016: Reply of A.C Puttur

Ex.C5: 23.01.2016: O/C of the regd lawyers notice

Ex.C6: 27.01.2016: Postal Acknowledgement               

Ex.C7: 26.05.2016: O/c of the regd lawyers notice

Ex.C8: 28.05.2016: Postal Acknowledgement 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil

Dated: 22.5.2017                                          PRESIDENT