Date of Filing: 18/11/2011
Date of Order: 25/11/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER 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.2090 OF 2011
Smt. Padma,
W/o. Shankar,
R/at: No.7, Flat form Road,
Krishna Flour Mill,
Near Seshadripuram,
BANGALORE-560 020.
(Rep. by Sri.B.Sreeraman, Advocate) …. Complainant.
V/s
1. The Managing Director,
SC/ST Corporation, Ambedkar Foundation,
9 & 10th Floor, Podium Block, Near GPO,
Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560 001.
2. Mr. M.S.Nagesh,
R/at: No.173, “Risaldar Street”,
Old Savarline, Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore-560 020. …. Opposite Parties.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to return the LIC bond to the complainant, are necessary:-
The opposite party No.2 is the brother of the husband of the complainant and all of them are living in joint family since 25 years. The complainant is having a LIC policy bearing No.611536761 and if matured on 28.10.2011. She searched for it about two months back to get the amount of the bond and she found that the second opposite party has stolen the said bond forged her signature and pledged it with the first opposite party and obtained loan from the first opposite party on 04.01.2002 of Rs.3,00,000/-. The first opposite party is not returning the LIC bond to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
2. Heard.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether there exists a relationship of consumer or trader or a consumer dispute in this complaint to issue process to the opposite parties?
- What Order?
4. Our findings are:-
Point (A) & (B): As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
5. The complaint is summarized supra, the same be read herein again. The entire grievance of the complainant is that her LIC bond has been stolen by the second opposite party, forged her signature, pledged the said LIC bond and obtained loan from opposite party No.1 and she want the original policy returned to her by opposite party No.1. This may come with the ambit and scope of cheating or fraud which can to agitated before the appropriate criminal court or before the learned magistrate as the case may be and it will not attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
6. To come within the ambit and scope of the Consumer Protection Act the complainant must be a consumer. The opposite party must be a trader and there must exists a consumer disputes and deficiency in service. In this case none of these things exists. The complainant has not purchased any service nor the opposite party No.1 has sold any goods or service for any consideration to the complainant nor there is a consumer dispute nor there is any deficiency in service nor there is any unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint is misconceived.
7. If the complainant is entitled to or advised so she may approach the Civil court or the Criminal Court as the case may be seeking appropriate relief for which this order will not come in the way. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed.
2. The original documents may be returned to the complainant.
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 the 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 25th Day of November 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
