Date of filing: 05.09.2019

                                                               Date of Disposal:21.01.2023

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1403/2019

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Haripal Singh Uberol,

Aged about 66 years,

Rich & Famous Apts, No.72,

Indiranagar, 2^nd Stage,

Bangalore-560 038. ……COMPLAINANT

In person

The Chairman and Managing Director,

Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited,

115, Ansal Bhawan,

16, Kasturb Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001.……     OPPOSITE PARTY-1

RR Investors Capital Services Private Limited,

S-111, Manipal Centre,

No.47, Dickenson Road,

Bangalore-560 042.……     OPPOSITE PARTY-2

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

The complainant in person has filed this complaint on 05.09.2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.8,79,250/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. 

2. Since, the steps has not been taken to serve the notice on opposite party no.1, the complaint against opposite party no.1 came to be dismissed by the order of this commission dt.26.03.2021. 

3. It is not in dispute that the opposite party no.2 was acting as an agent of opposite party no.1.  Further, the complainant had followed-up and reminded about the non-repayment of matured deposits by the opposite party no.1 and emails were sent to the opposite party no.1. 

4. It is the further case of the complainant that he had deposited a total sum of Rs.7,70,000/- in the form of FD with opposite party no.1 and the complainant is a senior citizen.  Further, the FD receipts were delivered to his residential address and the opposite party assured to pay interest every quarterly.  Further, 1^st deposit was made on 28.02.2013 and the last deposit made on 08.04.2013.  Hence, the complainant is entitle for a total sum of maturity amount of Rs.8,66,250/-.  Further, even though demand has been made by the complainant, the opposite party did not return the matured deposit and the interest accrued thereon.  Hence, the complaint came to be filed.

5. It is the contention of the opposite party no.2 that he was acting only an agent of opposite party no.1 and as such he cannot be held guilty for deficiency of service.  Further, the opposite party no.2 being only an agent of opposite party no.1 had no control over the acts of commission or omission on the part of its principal.  Further, the opposite party no.2 is not liable for the acts of a disclosed principal subject to a contract of the contrary, in view of Section-230 of Indian Contract Act.  Further, no such contract to the contrary has been pleaded in the present complaint.  Hence, agent cannot be sued when the principal had been disclosed.  Further, the role of opposite party no.2 was to collect application form along with cheque from the complainant and to deposit the same with opposite party no.1 and in turn deliver the receipt of the FDR to the complainant.  The opposite party no.2 had performed his part of obligation diligently as an agent of opposite party no.1 and the complainant did not pay any amount to opposite party no.2 for the work he did.  Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.

6. To prove the case, the complainant did not lead any evidence and had produced documents.  The Branch Manager of opposite party no.2 (RW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R1 document. 

         7. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?

   ii) Whether the complainant is entitle for the 

    compensation as sought ?

    iv) What order ?

   8.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In negative

Point No.2 :  In negative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

9.POINT NO.1:- The Branch Manager of opposite party no.2 (RW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.  The complainant has produced Xerox copy of the letter addressed to the opposite party no.1 seeking to release the deposit amount.  Further, the complainant has produced Xerox copy of the FD receipts.  The opposite party no.2 has produced the letter of authorization (R1) permit him to appear and to give evidence in the case.  It is the burden on the complainant to prove the case by filing affidavit and documentary evidence as contemplated under Section-38(6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The complainant did not file any affidavit in the form of his evidence.  In addition to Section-38(9)(c) of Consumer Protection Act contemplates that the District Commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, while trying a suit in respect of receiving of evidence on affidavits.  Therefore, the complainant shall tender the sworn affidavit by entering into witness box.  That has not been complied by the complainant.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove the burden casted on him.  Apart from that the complainant did not take steps to serve notice on opposite party no.1 against whom the complainant had sought the main relief.  Further, the opposite party no.2 being an agent any deficiency cannot be levelled against opposite party no.2 as contemplated under Section-230 of Contract Act.  In the case on hand, the opposite party no.2 had collected the FD from the complainant and had delivered FD receipts to the complainant as admitted by him.  Further, the agent had disclosed the name of his principal (opposite party no.1).  Hence, any contrary view cannot be taken to sue the opposite party no.2 as contemplated under Section-230 of Indian contract Act.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service as alleged.   Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in negative.

10. POINT NO.2:- In view of the discussions made above and findings given on point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought or otherwise.  Accordingly, we answer this point in negative. 

11. POINT NO.3:-  In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;

Complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 21^st day of January, 2023)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  
•  

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Xerox copy of the letter addressed to the opposite party no.1 seeking to release the deposit amount. 

2. Xerox copy of the FD receipts.

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

Sri.Shankar Karunakaran, Branch Manager of opposite party no.2 has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

1. Letter of Authorization dt.18.11.2021.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•