COMPLAINT FILED: 27.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 31st MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 230/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Rajanna. M,<br /> Manjunatha Electricals,<br /> No. 5/1-2B, C.P. Complex,<br /> Opp. RMV Clusters) Devinagara,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Advocate (Lokesh Boovanahalli)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Suvidha Infotec Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Head Office, No. 41,<br /> Minoo Desai Marg,<br /> Colabo,<br /> Mumbai – 05.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Suvidha Infoway Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Branch Office at No. 38,<br /> 1st Floor, Meanee Aveue,<br /> Tank Bond Road, <br /> Ulsoor,<br /> Bangalore – 42.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.40,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant availed the services of the OP by paying Rs.40,000/- with respect to the Suvidha Dealership floated by OP. Though OP collected the said huge amount, failed to give the connection evenafter the lapse of 6 months from the date of registration and the deposit made. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in futile. For want of the said service from the OP in time, complainant is unable to pay the electricity bill, telephone bill, water bill, for the purpose for which he availed the utility service of the OP. Under the circumstances he was forced to write a letter to OP to cancel his dealership and refund the amount on 04.06.2008. Again there was no response. Then he caused the legal notice, the result is one and the same. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Though complainant invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. The said notices were not returned up to 30 days, hence the service of notice is held sufficient under sec – 28 A of the C.P. Act. As the absence of the OP does not appears to be bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with the paper advertisement and publicity issued by the OP, who claims to be the multi services retailing business under the name and style “Suvidha”, thought of getting the dealership. In that regard he paid Rs.40,000/- for the registration, wherein OP promised to provide accessories, EDC machine, to do the business under Suvidha Services Retail. The documents to that effect are produced. Though OP received the said Rs.40,000/- failed to gave the connection, evenafter lapse of six months. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in futile. Because of the hostile attitude of the OP complainant could not utilize the said service for paying electrical bill, telephone bill, mobile bills, etc. <br /> <br /> 5. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-appearance of the OP leads us to draw an inference that OP admits the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Complainant being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP sought for cancellation of his dealership by addressing a letter on 04.06.2008. The copy of the letter is produced. Again there was no response. Then complainant got issued the legal notice. The copy of the legal notice and postal acknowledgement are produced. Again there was no response. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> 6. Though complainant invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Under such circumstances OP having retained the said huge amount without extending the service as contemplated accrued the wrongful gain to self, thereby caused the wrongful loss to the complainant. For these reasons we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves the relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.40,000/- paid by the complainant together with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from October 2007 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />