BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 14/07.<br /> <br /> THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL 2008.<br /> P R E S E N T<br /> <br /> 1. Sri. N.H.Savalagi, B.A.LLB. (Spl) PRESIDENT.<br /> 2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.<br /> 3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.<br /> *****<br /> COMPLAINANT :- Sneha Mahila Swa Sahaya Sangha Chellagurki <br /> Post Bellary Tq & Dist: Raichur. Through Smt. K.Shivageetha W/o. K.Shankarappa, Age: 42 years, Occ: Household, Chellagurki, Tq. & Dist: Raichur. <br /> <br /> //VERSUS//<br /> <br /> RESPONDENTS :- 1. Sri. N. Shivashanker S/o. W. Subba Reddy <br /> Age: 44 years, H.No. 32, Shanker Colony,First Road, Tq. Gangavathi Dist: Koppal.<br /> <br /> 2. Smt. Kashibai Bydagi W/o. Ravindra Javadagi, Age: 35 years, Krishi Vignan Kendra, Hagari Dharwad.<br /> <br /> 3. Sri. Raghuveerkumar A.V. S/o. A.V.R.Naidu, Prop. Sainik Enterprises, No. 60, Railway Colony, 2nd stage, Rajamahal Vilas Circle, Bangalore.<br /> <br /> CLAIM :- For refund of Rs. 1,80,000/- with compensation of <br /> Rs. One Lakh and 12% interest and cost.<br /> <br /> Date of institution :- 17-01-07. D.C.F. Bellary.<br /> 11-06-07. On transfer to D.C.F. Raichur.<br /> Notice served :- 15-02-07.D.C.F. Bellary<br /> 03-08-07. D.C.F. Raichur.<br /> Date of disposal :- 25-04-08.<br /> <br /> Complainant represented by Sri. Amaregouda, Advocate. <br /> Respondent No. 1 & 2 represented by Sri. M.S.Baig, Advocate.<br /> Respondent No-3 Exparte.<br /> -----<br /> This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> JUDGEMENT<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant-Sneha Mahila Swa Sahaya Sangha Challagurki Post, Tq. & Dist: Bellary through Smt. K. Shivagita R/o. Challagurki, Member of Sangha against Respondents 1 to 3 N.Shivashanker R/o. Gangavathi, (2) Smt. Kashibai Bydagi R/o. Dharwad and (3) Raghuveerkumar R/o. Bangalore.<br /> 2. Originally this complaint was filed before District Forum at Bellary and during the pendency of the case it came to be transferred to this Forum to dispose of the complaint on merits after due notice to both the parties, as per the Order of the Hon’ble State Commission in Miscellaneous Petition No. 54/07 dt. 22-03-07. The records of the case were received on 14-06-07. In-pursuance of notice issued to the parties by this Forum, the complainant Sangha appeared on 12-07-07 through Sri. G.Amaregouda, Advocate. The Respondents 1 & 2 appeared through Sri. M.S.Baig, Advocate on 03-08-07 Sri. M.S. Baig who had undertaken to file vakalat for Respondent No-3 did not file the vakalat in-spite of granting sufficient time. Respondent NO-3 called out absent. So Respondent NO-3 has been placed Ex-parte. However this Respondent No-3 was already Ex-parte in the proceedings before District Consumer Forum Bellary vide order sheet dt. 15-02-07 in-pursuance of paper publication of notice.<br /> <br /> 3. The brief facts of the complaint which is in Kannada may be summed up as under:<br /> The Respondent No- 1 & 2 suggested and induced 22 women Members of the complainant Sangha to prepare Soft Toys for which they will give training for one month. But the Members expressed their inability to arrange for funds for which the Respondents 1 & 2 induced them that they will arrange for training through Respondent NO-3 and they would get sanction the loan from Pragathi Grameen Bank Branch Chellagurki. On such inducement the complainant and other 21 members of its Sangha showed their readiness for that scheme. Respondent No- 1 & 2 themselves got prepared loan application of 22 women Members of Sangha and got sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- from Pragathi Grameen Bank. Out of loan amount the Pragathi Grameena Bank has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- directly to the Respondent No-3 towards training charges through D.D. No. 990156 dt. 18-10-05 at the instance of Respondents 1 & 2. In addition Rs. 60,000/- through D.D. No. 990180 dt. 15-12-05 and net cash of Rs. 20,000/- also been given to Respondent No-3 at the instance of Respondent NO- 1 & 2. <br /> <br /> In October-2005 the Respondents 1 & 2 gave training through Respondent No-3 to the Lady Members of the society for preparation of Soft Toys. Soft Toys of worth Rs. 45,000/- have been prepared by the complainant and other Members of the society and same have been taken away by Respondent No-3 on 15-12-05 apart from the sanctioned loan amount. The complainant and other Members were not knowing Respondent NO-3 but they came to know him only through Respondent No- 1 & <br /> <br /> 2. Respondent No-3 gave false assurance for supply of raw-materials for preparation of Soft Toys. But ultimately raw-materials were not supplied by Respondent No-3. On enquiry Respondent No- 1 & 2 assured that they would contact Respondent NO-3 for supply of raw-materials and went on giving false assurance for supply of raw-materials by contacting Respondent NO-3 but went in vain.<br /> <br /> Thus, Respondents 1 to 3 are negligent and deficient in service to the complainant Sangha and duped the Members of the complainant Sangha by taking the loan amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- and prepared Soft Toys worth of Rs. 45,000/- totaling to Rs. 2,25,000/- and thereby Respondents 1 to 3 are liable to repay Rs. 2,25,000/- to the Society Members. The attitude of the Respondents 1 to 3 in not refunding the said sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- amounts to deficiency in service. So the complainant have sought for direction for refund of loan amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 18-10-05 till payment along with Rs. One Lakh towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation. <br /> <br /> 4. The Respondents 1 & 2 have filed their written version/objection to the complaint contending that there is no relationship between consumer and/or any privity of contract between the complainant and Respondent 1 & 2 with regard to the alleged transaction. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 are the employees of University of Agricultural Science Dharwad and have served in KVK (Krishi Vighyan Kendra) Hagari from June/31-12-98 to August/31-12-06 as Training Organizers and Training Associates respectively. The very object of the Krishi Vigan Kendra is to provide and organize the training programmes with Agriculturist ( men & women) in Agricultural and in allied activities for the economical development.<br /> <br /> In-furtherance of the same, an Introductory Meeting with the women of Chellagurki village was arranged at the instance of Sri. H.A.P. Rao Assistant General Manager NABARD Bank Bellary at KVK Hagari and in the said Meeting the said Sri. H.A.P. Rao introduced about the Art of preparation of Soft Toys and Buy-Back arrangements through M/s. Sainik Enterprises. The women and the members of the complainant Sangha who were present in the meeting were impressed by it and agreed to learn the Art of preparation of Soft Toys to augment the income. The women of Chellagurki village approached Respondents 1 & 2 to organize for the training and at that time the Assistant Genergal Manger of NABARD Bank and Respondent No-3 convinced about the cost and benefits in providing the training through M/s. Sainik Enterprises and for this also the complainant Sangha Members agreed. So the training programme was arranged by Respondent NO- 1 & 2 at the cost of K.V.K. Hagari and Inaugural Function was held on 10-01-05 and the training programme was started at KVK Hagari for a period one week. Then the complainant requested for the continuation of the training programme at Chellagurki village for the convenience of the trainees. So the training programme was continued. From this training members and the complainant learnt the art of preparation of Soft Toys and they voluntarily approached Respondent NO-3 and agreed to contribute the fund for the purchase of raw-materials through Respondent No-3. For the said funds they made their-own arrangements by forming Self Help Group (SHG) i.e, complainant Sangha and approached the Pragathi Gramina Bank Chellagurki village and obtained loan and started their activities relying on Respondent No-3 Raghuveer.<br /> <br /> These Respondent No- 1 & 2 had undertaken the responsibility of giving training for a period of one month and on completion of said training they are discharged from their responsibility. Immediately after the completion of training programme the free service provided by these Respondent 1 & 2 came to an end and they are not liable for the act of Respondent No-3 who was introduced by H.A.P.Rao General Manager NABARD Bellary. The subsequent transaction between the complainant and Respondent No-3 are in the absence of these Respondents. So they are in no way concerned to the payments made by complainant through Pragathi Grameen Bank. Even at the time of payment of the said amount neither the complainant nor the said bank informed these Respondents. Therefore it is false to allege that on the suggestion and encouragement of these Respondents the members of the Sangha and complainant formed SHG and on the pressure of these Respondents they have undergone training. These Respondents being employees on public institutions cannot bring any pressure on any body they only provide and arrange the training programme to help the agriculturist in getting the technology in allied activities to improve their financial condition.<br /> <br /> These Respondents have not prepared any project report and submitted to the bank as contended. It is false to allege that the payment of D.D. of Rs. 50,000/- dt. 18-10-05, Rs. 60,000/- dt. 15-12-05 & cash of Rs. 20,000/- are made through these Respondents. The payments are made in the absence of these Respondents. The complainant and bank could have been taken abundant caution at the time of payment of said amount. The complainant have not at all asked these Respondents at the time of making such payments nor complained about Respondent No-3 till the end of December-2006 though the training programme came to an end on 28-12-05. <br /> <br /> The complainant met these Respondents only on the absconding of Respondent No-3. Then these Respondents asked them why such an amount has been paid without any security from Respondent No-3. Then the complainant said that Respondent No-3 showed promptness in the beginning and this made them to believe on Respondent No-3. Thus the Members of the complainant Sangha have been cheated by Respondent No-3. Therefore H.A.P. Rao Assistant General Manager NABARD Bank Bellary is necessary party to this case as Respondent NO-3 was introduced by him. These Respondents have never advised nor encouraged to take loan from the bank. They are not at all liable for the loan taken and payments made to Respondent No-3 and they have only organized training programme in good faith with bonafide intention to help the agriculturist in getting technology for the economical development and the said programme has been successfully completed with free of cost and absolutely there is no negligence on the part of these Respondents. The complainants have no grievances in-respect of training taken by them and there is no deficiency of service during the training period. So these Respondents are not necessary or proper parties and they have been falsely implicated under mis-conception. So the complaint will not fall under the preview of C.P. Act. Hence these Respondents are not liable for the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as claimed by the complainant. It is false to allege that in the month of November-2005 these Respondents made to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- through D.D. and Rs. 20,000/- by cash to Respondent No-3 the said payments have been made to Respondent NO-3 on their own. Hence for all these reasons they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them with compensatory cost.<br /> <br /> 5. The records reveal that the Respondent NO-3 has already been placed Ex-parte on 15-02-07 by D.C.F. Bellary when he remained absent in-response to service of paper publication of notice in ‘Sanjay Vani Paper’. Before D.C.F Bellary the complainant has filed sworn-affidavit of its representative Smt. K.Sivageeta by-way of examination-in-chief for self and on behalf of the Members of said bank. <br /> <br /> 6. After the transfer of the case to this Forum, initially the contesting Respondent NO-1 & 2 submitted for hearing on preliminary point on maintainability of the complaint as per the pending application which was filed by them before D.C.F.Bellary. On being pressed for preliminary hearing on maintainability of the complaint, this Forum posted the case for preliminary hearing. But since parties sought adjournments from time to time on one or the other reason so this Forum directed for hearing on the merits of the case itself and posted for enquiry. <br /> <br /> 5. During the course of enquiry the contesting Respondents 1 & 2 filed their affidavit-evidence as RW 1 & 2 by way of rebuttal evidence. (The complainant Sangha had already filed the affidavit/evidence of Smt. Sivageeta before the D.C.F.Bellary prior to its transfer to this Forum). On behalf of the complainant (17) documents are got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17. The contesting Respondents 1 & 2 have not produced any documents to be marked. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 8. The Order sheet dt. 22-02-07 of the D.C.F.Bellary shows that Issues are framed on 22-02-07 and case posted for conciliation and evidence of complainant by 12-03-07. But the records do not show the Issue-sheet regarding Issues framed by the D.C.F.Bellary. The proceedings under the C.P. Act being summary proceedings and only point for consideration are being raised by this Forum (Raichur Forum), hence the following points arise for our consideration and determination:<br /> 1.Whether the Respondents 1 & 2 prove that there is no relationship of consumer and/or any privity of contract between the complainant Members Sangha with regard to the alleged transaction, as alleged.?<br /> <br /> 2.Whether the complaint proves deficiency of service by the <br /> Respondents 1 to 3, as alleged.?<br /> <br /> 3.Whether the complainant Sangha is entitled for the reliefs sought for.?<br /> <br /> 9. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> 1. In the affirmative.<br /> 2. In the affirmative. <br /> 3. As per final order for the following<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> POINT NO.1:-<br /> 10. The Respondents 1 & 2 have contended that the complaint is not maintainable against Respondent No- 1 & 2 since there is no relationship of consumer and/or any privity of contract between them and the complainant from 28-10-05 with regard to the transaction alleged by the complainant. The complainant has asserted the relationship of the Respondents with complainant as it is Respondents 1 & 2 who induced them for preparation of Soft Toys and also introduced Respondent No-3 and at their instance the loan amount was obtained and paid to Respondent No-3 for supply of raw-materials etc.,<br /> <br /> 11. The complainant Sangha has filed about (17) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17. Out of which Ex.P-1 is the Xerox copy of Project Report. Ex.P-2 is the Xerox copy of Projected Profitability Statement. Ex.P-3 is the letter of Tungabhadra Grameena Bank dt. 10-02-06 addressed to District Officer KVIC Bellary. Ex.P-4 is the list of Members of complainant-Sangha. Ex.P-5 is the letter of Tungabhadra Grameen Bank dt. 26-09-06 with creditors list. Ex.P-6 is the Creditors List on bank letter Head Pad. Ex.P-7 is the letter from University of Agricultural Sciences Dharwad dt. 14-06-04. Ex.P-8 is the Constitution of a scientific Advisory Committee of University Agricultural Sciences dt. 21-05-04. Ex.P-9 is the Advisory Committee Resolution for the year 2003-04 & 2004-05. Ex.P-10 is the Advisory Committee Resolution for the year 2004-05. Ex.P-11 is the Invitation Card. Ex.P-12 is the Pamphlet of Respondent No-1. Ex.P-13 is the Advertisement Card sheet. Ex.P-14 is the List of Creditors on bank letter head dt. 18-01-07. Ex.P-15 is the letter of original letter dt. 26-09-06 of the Tungabhadra Grameen Bank with list of creditors. Ex.P-16 is the Registration Certificate of complainant Sangha and Members List. Ex.P-17 is the Rules and Regulations of Association of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 12. Out of these (17) documents, Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4, Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-11 are the material. <br /> Ex.P-3 the letter of Tungabhadra Grameen Bank/PGB Branch Chellagurki dt. 10-02-06 addressed to District Officer KVK Bellary discloses that the Manager of the said Bank has informed that one Soft Toys making unit (consisting of 20 women beneficiary) is functioning in Chellagurki village. All the Members of the subject Soft Toys making unit i.e, Sneha Mahila Swayam Seva Sangha Chellagurki, have undergone training through M/s. Sainik Enterprises Kodligi Camp at Hoovinadagalli for one month duration during November-2005 Krishi Vignan Kendra Hagari have sponsored the training programme. On 18-10-05 a sum of Rs. 50,000/- paid to M/s. Sainik Enterprises vide D.D. dt. 18-10-05 being the training cost of 25 beneficiaries. A sum of Rs. 60,000/- paid to Sri. A.V. Raghuveerkumar, Sainik Enterprises Koodligi at Hoovinadagalli vide D.D. dt. 15-12-05 for supply of raw-materials for Soft Toys making to SHG Members on Sneha Mahila Swayam Seva Sangha Chellagurki project cost of the Soft Toys making unit is Rs. 10,000/- beneficiary and requested to send the required forms for claiming subsidy. <br /> From this letter it does not disclose as to at whose instance the Tunbaghadra Grameen Bank/Pragathi Grameen Bank sanctioned said loan and paid Rs. 50,000/- to M/s. Sainik Enterprises and Rs. 60,000/- to A.V. Raghuveer Kumar, Sainik Enterprises although it discloses that the amount under two DD are remitted by Pragathi Grameena Bank as per request of complainant Sangha (unit). <br /> <br /> Ex.P-4 is the list of 22 Member of complainant Sangha ( Sneha Mahila Swayam Seva Sangha Chellagurki.<br /> Ex.P-5 is another letter of Tungabhadra Grameen Bank/Pragathi Grameen Bank dt. 26-09-06 addressed to Smt. K.Shivageetha complainant representatives in this case. This letter states that as per the request of beneficiaries (24 Members) the bank has sanctioned loan to the individual Members of complainant Sangha namely Rs. 25,000/- to Smt. K.Shivageetha, Rs. 25,000/- to Smt. Lalita, Rs. 20,000/- to Smt. H.Sunitha, Rs. 20,000/- to T.Hemavathi and Rs. 20,000/- to Smt. Yeramma, and Rs. 10,000/- each to the remaining (19) Members beneficiaries. Totally they have sanctioned a loan of Rs. Three Lakh to all the (24) beneficiaries. This letter also shows that as per the request of the beneficiaries they have remitted Rs. 50,000/- by way of DD dt. 18-10-05 to Sainik Enterprises Hoovinahadalaglli, Rs. 60,000/- has been remitted by way of DD dt. 15-12-05 to Raghuveer Kumar. All have not remitted the loan installment regularly and so requested to remit the overdue installments. <br /> <br /> A perusal of this letter discloses that the loan was sanctioned as per the request of complainant-Sangha Members, showing quantum of loan amount to each Member and as per their request only the Bank has remitted two DDs to Respondent No-3.<br /> Ex.P-6 is the list of creditors showing outstanding dues of each beneficiaries including Smt. Shivageetha at Sl.No-8 of the list showing the outstanding dues of Rs. 25,800/-.<br /> Ex.P-7 is the letter of Respondent No- 1 N.Shivashanker showing him as Training Organizer of Krishi Vigyan Kendra University of Agricultural Sciences Dharwad at K.V.K. Hagari addressed to Smt. Shivageetha the complainant dt. 14-06-04. Through this letter Respondent No-1 requested for participating in the meeting scheduled on 21-06-04 at 10-00 AM at KVK Seminar Hall at Hagari for over-all development of KVK. <br /> Ex.P-8 is the Constitution of advisory committee of University of Agricultural Science Dharwad dt. 21-05-04. This document interalia shows the name of Smt. Shivageetha as Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee issued by Administrative Officer University of Agricultural Sciences Dharwad. Ex.P-11 is the Invitation Card of Inaugural Function of Training programme for preparation of Soft Toys to the Member complainant Sangha scheduled on 10-10-05. This Invitation Card shows the name of Respondent No-1 as the Training organizer of Krishi Vigyan Kendra Hagari. <br /> <br /> 13. The Respondents 1 & 2 have stated that they have organised training programme with intention to help the agriculturist in getting technology for their economical development and there is no negligence for their part and there is no deficiency of service in-respect of training given by them to the complainant Sangha. But it is their contention that they have not prepared any project report and submitted to the bank for obtaining loan. They being the employees of public institution cannot bring any pressure on anybody and they only provide and arrange the training programme to help the agriculturist in getting technology in allied activities to improve their financial condition.<br /> <br /> 14. A close perusal of letters of the Pragathi Grameena Bank at Ex.P-3, Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-6 they do not disclose that the said loan was sanctioned at the instance of Respondents 1 & 2. Even they do not disclose that the remittance of Rs. 50,000/- through DD dt. 18-10-05 to the Sainik Enterprises at Hoovinahadagalli and DD of Rs. 60,000/- dt. 15-12-05 to Raghuveerkumar were made at the instance of inducement of Respondent NO-1 & 2. On the contrary it shows remittance of DD of Rs. 50,000/- paid to Sainik Enterprises and DD of Rs. 60,000/- to A.V.Raghuveerkumar were made at the request of Members of complainant-sangha. The cause title and the complaint-averments disclose that Respondent No-3 (Raghuveer kumar) is the proprietor of Sainik Enterprises No. 60 Railway Colony, 2nd stage Rajamahal Vilas circle, Bangalore. The documentary evidence produced by the complainant-sangha do not whisper a single word regarding the part played by Respondent No-1 & 2 either in sanction of loan to the complainant sangha or remittance of loan amount to Sainik Enterprises/Respondent NO-3 at their instance. In the absence of the same by no stretch of imagination it cannot be said that Respondent No- 1 & 2 had induced and instigated the Members of the complainant-sangha for forming the Sangha, for obtaining the loan from the Pragathi Grameena Bank and for remitting the amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- under two DD to Sainik Enterprises (Respondent No-3). Hence we hold that there is no relationship of consumer and or any privity contract between the complainant-sangha and the Respondents 1 & 2. Hence Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:- <br /> 15. In-view of our discussion on Point No-1 it goes without any hesitation that there is no deficiency of service by the Respondent No- 1 & 2. Hence we have to see this Point No-2, regarding deficiency of service by Respondent No-3 who is Ex-parte in this case.<br /> <br /> As discussed in Point No-1 and as revealed from the letters of Pragathi Grameena Bank at Ex.P-3, Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-6 it amply shows the remittance of Rs. 50,000/- to M/s. Sainik Enterprises vide DD No. 990156 dt. 19-10-05 being the training cost of Member of complainant Sangha and Rs. 60,000/- through DD dt. 15-12-05 to Raghuveerkumar (Respondent No-3) for supply of raw materials for preparation of Soft Toys. Admittedly Respondent No-3 (Raghuveerkumar) is the proprietor of M/s. Sainik Enterprises, as could be seen from cause title and paper publication (citation) in ‘Sanjay Vani’ News Paper dt. 09-02-07. Further, the complaint and the evidence shows that this Raghuveerkumar (Respondent NO-3) has neither supplied the raw materials nor refunded the DD amount received by him. <br /> <br /> 16. But however the complainant Sangha have not substantiated by any material particulars regarding payment of Rs. 20,000/- in cash to the Respondent No-3 and that this Respondent No-3 had taken away the prepared Soft Toys worth Rs. 45,000/- as alleged. So this allegation of the complainant remained without any proof. Hence it follows that the complainant Sangha have proved deficiency of service by Respondent No-3- Raghuveerkumar who is the proprietor of M/s. Sainik Enterprises, in not supplying raw-materials for the preparation of Soft Toys for the supply of which the Pragathi Grameena Bank had given DDs worth Rs. 50,000/- & Rs. 60,000/- totaling to Rs. 1,10,000/- at the instance of complainant-sangha. So, to this extent the complainant-sangha have proved deficiency of service by Respondent No-3. Hence point No-2 is answered in the affirmative to this extent only.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> 17. The complainant-sangha has sought for direction for refund of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 18-10-05 till realization and Rs. One Lakh towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation. In-view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 & 2 we hold that the complainant-sangha has miserably failed to prove deficiency of service against Respondent No- 1 & 2 but however it has proved deficiency in service against Respondent No-3 only to the extent of Rs. 1,10,000/-. So the Respondent NO-3 Raghuveerkumar in his individual capacity and as proprietor of M/s. Sainik Enterprises is liable to pay Rs. 1,10,000/-. <br /> <br /> 18. So far as the claim of interest at 12%, and Award Rs. One Lakh towards mental agony, Rs. 10,000/- towards cost are concerned, it appears that the complainant are claiming compensation under two heads namely one for interest and another for mental agony. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above we feel it just and proper to award a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part only against Respondent NO-3.<br /> Respondent No-3-Raghuveerkumar being the proprietor of M/s. Sainik Enterprises shall refund/payRs. 1,10,000/- along with a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/-within a period two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> The complaint against Respondent No- 1 & 2 being devoid of merits is dismissed without cost.<br /> Office to furnish a copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 25-04-08)<br /> One Leave Sd/- Sd/-<br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. GururajSri. N.H. Savalagi,<br /> Member. Member. President, <br /> Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br />