DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.149 of 12-02-2014

Decided on 20-02-2014

Gurvinder Singh # 29252-A, Street No.2, Janta Nagar City-Bathinda-151005.

........Complainant

Versus

1.The Hon'ble Director Mr.Ramesh Chander, RBI Regional Online Office Delhi Foreign Exchange and Remittance Department 6, Sansad-Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Sub Manager Mr.Awgujiegbe Desmond).

2.The Manager, State Bank of Patiala, VPO Mehma Sarja, District Bathinda-151201 Punjab.

3.The Chief Administrative Officer, Shell Petroleum Centre, 46 Bush Road, Off Stamfordline PE92YP, Liverpool London, SE 17 NA-UK.

4.The Hon'ble Prime Minister, 10, Downing Street, London SW1A 2AA.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Gurvinder Singh, complainant in person.

For Opposite parties: Not summoned.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he wrote dozen and dozen letters to the office of RBI through the Hon'ble Queen Elizabeth-II to rectify the pending transfer amount into his account, but it has failed to give services hired by the British administration through the Royal Bank of Scotland and raised the contention of Rs.35,725/-, for which he is a beneficiary/consumer. The RBI has not received the cheque from the complainant by clarifying and authenticating the online communication on his visit dated 10.5.2012. The complainant further alleged that he has sent dozens of letters to RBI through the Queen, but it closed all the online contacts. The RBI has done nothing to examine and authenticate the online communication to finish his pending money or to rectify the debt into his account by ensuring his correct online communication. The complainant has prayed to pay the lump-sum amount of Rs.1.50 lac as costs for harassment.

2. Preliminary hearing is given to the complainant and record placed on file by the complainant perused.

3. A bare perusal of this complaint shows that the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties i.e. The Hon'ble Director Mr.Ramesh Chander, RBI Regional Online Office Delhi Foreign Exchange and Remittance Department 6, Sansad-Marg, New Delhi-110001 (The Sub Manager Mr.Awgujiegbe Desmond); The Manager, State Bank of Patiala, VPO Mehma Sarja, District Bathinda-151201 Punjab; The Chief Administrative Officer, Shell Petroleum Centre, 46 Bush Road, Off Stamfordline PE92YP, Liverpool London, SE 17 NA-UK and The Hon'ble Prime Minister, 10, Downing Street, London SW1A 2AA. On the very first hand the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant are not clear, vague and ambiguous. On the second hand the complainant has been presenting himself beneficiary/consumer of the opposite parties, whereas in his complaint he has submitted that he has written dozen and dozen letters to the office of RBI through 'the majesty of the Hon'ble Queen Elizabeth-II' to rectify the pending transfer into his account, but RBI has done nothing regarding the same, this contention of complainant shows that he has not hired any services from the opposite parties. The complainant in his entire complaint has failed to prove that how he has hired the services of the RBI and for what purpose he has hired those services and what sort of consideration/payment was made by him. A perusal of Para No.12(a) of his prayer shows that he has prayed for lump-sum of Rs.1.50 lac as costs for harassment. Regarding his this prayer, he has failed to prove that how he is entitled for the costs of Rs.1.50 lac and what type of harassment has been given by RBI or State Bank of Patiala to him. Further in Para No.12(b), the complainant has prayed to settle the disputed conversation costs by whom to be paid that are unbinding in case dollar is converted at selling price, which are payable by the British who hire the RBI services and that are also sought to be get exempted, so that rectified transfer is to be finished with all protection documents, his this prayer is again ambiguous and vague. At Para No.12(c), the complainant has prayed to disclose other such pending debts with RBI in 2011 to 2013 on approval of the Australian Government or of any other government part, here again he has failed to establish himself either consumer or beneficiary of the RBI or State Bank of Patiala. Thus the entire complaint of the complainant is vague, frivolous and ambiguous filed just to harass the opposite parties. Moreover the complainant also filed such like complaints which have already been decided by this Forum and he is in habit of filing such vague and baseless complaints.

4. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is hereby dismissed in limini without any order as to cost.

5. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost and the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

20-02-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member