Orissa

Rayagada

CC/60/2017

Sri Gopal Krushna Tripathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Co-Ordinator Orissa - Opp.Party(s)

Self

26 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

    POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                ******************

C.C. Case  No. 60 / 2017.                        Date.    4   .    06   . 2019.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                   President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,                                                    Member.

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,                                              Member

 

Sri  Gopal  Krishna Tripathy, S/O: Sri Trilochan Tripathy,  AT: Siliput,Po:Therubali, Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                                 …             Complainant.

               

                Versus.

         

1.The State  Co-ordinator, Odisha CSA Group, Ist. Floor, Prachi Enclave,Opposite Care Hospital, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751 016.

2.The Chief Manager, CSA Group,  At:64, New Jagadamba colony, Vijaya Nagar,Po:Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh(India).

                                                                 ..Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps :-  Set exparte.

 

JUDGEMENT

          The  factual matrix of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for non refund of deposited amount a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards  appointment  in the O.Ps organisation  to promote their  services  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 2 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit.  Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

            During the course of  exparte  hearing the complainant examined himself and proved that the O.Ps  had issued  letter Dt.9.1.2017 in favour of the complainant  offered appointment  in O.Ps organisation  as Executive  in the place of Kolnara, Rayagada District to promote  their services and  the complainant will be  entitled  commission  for the above service (copies of the same is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). The  complainant further  submitted that after receipt of the   above  letter  from the O.P. the  complainant has paid Rs.60,000/- to the O.Ps towards security deposit and promotion of works.  In this regard the complainant had not submitted any copy  endorsement  of payment of money  in favour of the O.Ps nor  also proved.

 

Further this forum observed  prior to filing   of complaint, the complainant had issued letter to the O.Ps  on Dt. 07.04.2017 and it was duly served on the O.Ps.(Copies of the letter Dt.16.5.2017  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2)   but they failed to furnish reply to the said letter.  (copies of the postal  receipt Dt.7.4.2017  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-3).  Hence it appears that the O.Ps. have been negligent and callous regarding the complaint of the complainant. So the complainant filed this C.C. case before the forum.

 

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the sole question of determination is  Whether  the complainant is entitled  to  deposited amount   with the O.Ps ?

On perusal of the documents it is revealed that despite several adjournments taken  by the complainant for the purpose of filing relevant papers, the complainant failed to produce any documents in support of his claim.  When material facts pleaded by the complainant in support of his claim have been denied by the  O.P. the complainant is duty-bound to substantiate his claim by producing relevant documents there for, but he has failed to do so.  On the basis of mere pleadings of the complainant, which is no evidence, no positive finding can be recorded in regard to his claim. Hence, we are constrained to hold that the petition made by the complainant vis-à-vis non-satisfaction of his deposited claimed amount is devoid of any merit.

Hence to  meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.

                                                ORDER.

            In  view  of  our above observation, finding, evidence on record it is concluded that the  complainant miserably  failed to establish his claim before the forum  and hence  the petition is dismissed against the O.P.  Parties are left bear their own cost.

            However the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate court having jurisdiction to get  justice.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this              4th.   Day of    June,  2019.

 

 

Member.                                             Member.                              President