Date of Filing: 07/05/2011

        Date of Order: 18/08/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated: 18^th DAY OF AUGUST 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. 873 OF 2011

M/s. Fire Safe Concepts,

Represented by its Proprietor,

Mrs. Prajwal Rajshekar,

Situated at “Sri”, 20/1,

Doddappaiah Layout,

Nagashetty halli,

RMV 2^nd Stage,

Bangalore-560 094.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri.K.H.Somasekhara)                                          Complainant.

-V/s-

(1) M/s. Mahendra Associates,

No.2, 17^th “A” Cross, 8^th Main Road,

Malleshwaram, Bangalore-55,

Rep. by its Managing Director

Mr. Mahindra.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri.V.Srinivas)

(2) M/s. Promat International

Asia Pacific (A.P) Limited,

Cabin Bc-9 & Bc-10,

# 66/1, 2^nd Floor, Oculus work Spaces,

(Above Pizza Hut) Coles Road,

Frazer Town, Bangalore-05.

Rep. by its Regional Manager

Sri. Ram Raj Desai.

(Rep. by Advocate Venkatesh P.Dalwai)                               Opposite parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

ORDER

            The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, are necessary:-

            The opposite party No.1 is the authorized distributors of Promotect-40, 9mm thick boards manufactured by the head office of the opposite party No.2 at Malaysia.  The complainant approached the opposite party and purchased the promotect-40, 9mm thick boards to do the partition wall in a multi-storey commercial mall known as urban oasis mall belonging to M/s. Samrutha habitat Infrastructure Private Limited, Hubli.  The complainant purchased 126 sheets of promatect-40 9mm Boards at Rs.896/- per board on 11.08.2010 paying total amount of Rs.1,28,137/- and also purchased 250 promotect-40, 9mm boards at Rs.992/- per board on 02.12.2010 for a total sum of Rs.2,81,480/- from the opposite party No.1.  After the purchase the complainant installed the same and did the partition wall in the said mall by incurring expenditure regarding purchase of accessories associated items from M/s. Dhanvi Enterprises from 13.08.2010 and 02.12.2010 for Rs.1,90,168/- and also by paying labour charges of Rs.1,00,000/-.  Thus the complainant had invested more than Rs.6,00,000/-.  Three months thereafter completion of the project work M/s. Samhrutha Habitat Infrastructure Private Limited had issued a notice to the complainant on 25.02.2011 stating that the said boards cracked and wrapped in irregular direction and also frames are bent causing the defamation in the alignment of the walls and asked the complainant to take away the boards because of the substandard materials supplied by the opposite party No.1.  Accordingly the complainant approached the opposite parties to setright the issue.  The second opposite party had sent Mr.N.Charanraj who made investigation and submitted the report.  Accordingly the cause is aging of the materials.  As per the direction of the company the complainant has removed the boards from the place of fixing and has spent Rs.85,000/- towards labour charges and another sum of Rs.87,552/- towards miscellaneous expenses.  Hence the complainant has issued notice to the opposite party No.1 on 18.03.2011 calling upon to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to which it has sent an untenable reply denying all the averments and stated that the failure of the boards are not due to the problem of the board but it is due to the wrong installation.  The said reply is contrary to the report.  On 06.01.2011 Mr. Charanraj and Mr. Henry Vijayakumar visited the site and reinstalled the crack partition by replacing new boards which also cracked within three days after the installation on the same area.  Hence the complaint.

2.        In brief the version of the opposite party are:-

            This forum has no jurisdiction since the opposite party is at Davanagere.  The complainant has attended few classes between 07.07.2010 to 10.08.2010 and later she voluntarily withdrawn, hence the complainant is not entitled to any amount.

3.        To substantiate their respective cases the complainant has filed her affidavit, the opposite party did not turn up at all.  Heard the complainant.

4.        The points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service?
3. What order?

5.        Our findings on the above points are:-

            Point (A):In the Negative

Point (B):In the Positive

Point (C)       :           As per the final order

For the following:-

REASONS

POINT (A) to (C):-

6.        Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents and affidavit of the complainant it is an admitted fact that the complainant attended the PGCET conducted by RGUHS at Bangalore and she was allotted seat at the opposite party’s college.  Accordingly she has paid Rs.1,10,000/- to the opposite party.  Subsequently because of her monetary reasons she took transfer of her seat to Sree Siddaganga College of Pharmacy, Tumkur as per the order of the Directorate of Medical Education, Bangalore, No.PGS/6/2010-11, dated: 05.08.2010.  Accordingly she joined Sree Siddaganga College of Pharmacy, Tumkur and she sought refund of the amount paid and the opposite party has not paid the amount.  These things are all admitted.

7.        The contention of the opposite in the version is that this forum has no jurisdiction.  This is an untenable contention.  The seat has been allotted by RGUHS at Bangalore, the complainant took seat at Bangalore by attending the CET at Bangalore.  The opposite party is affiliated to RGUHS hence it has obeyed the order and subsequently as per the permission of the Directorate of Medical Education the complainant has been shifted from the opposite party’s college to Sree Siddaganga College of Pharmacy of Tumkur.  Hence this forum has a very jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  In this case the seat has been transferred by the CET Cell i.e., as per the orders of Directorate of Medical Education, Bangalore, to Sree Siddaganga College of Pharmacy, Tumkur, accordingly the complainant has joined that college.  Hence the complainant is entitled for refund of the money and the opposite party is bound to refund the money.

8.        Further it was alleged in the version that the complainant has attended few classes.  The complainant had denied it.  There is no material in this regard to show that the complainant has attended few classes.  In any event what is the classes that has been attended by the complainant? There is no material.  Even otherwise for about a month if the complainant had attended the opposite party could deduct Rs.10,000/- from Rs.1,10,000/- and pay back the money rest of the amount.  Even that has also not been done.  Hence under these circumstances the action of the opposite party is nothing but a deficiency in service.  Hence under these circumstances if we direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant within a particular time failing which it has to pay the amount along with interest we think that will meet the ends of justice.  The complainant is also entitled to the costs of this litigation.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.        The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which it shall pay the said amount with interest @ 12% per annum from 07.07.2010 until payment within 60 days.

3.       The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this litigation.

4.       The opposite party is directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 above through DD by registered post acknowledgment due to the complainant and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days.

5.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both 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 11^th  Day of August 2011)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT