BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 8th May 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.220/2016
(Admitted on 20.6.2016)
Mr. Vinaychandra Suvarna,
S/o. Late Damodar Suvarna,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at. Vaishnav, Shivabagh Main Road,
Kadri, Mangaluru 575002.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. RKR)
VERSUS
The Chairman,
M/s. Seven Hills Relators India (P) Ltd,
A Company, incorporated under,
The Indian Companies Act 1956,
Having its office situated at
D.V.G. Junior College,
Adarshnagar, Mallur 563130.
…. Opposite Party
(Opposite party : Ex parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI
- This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant had deposited a recurring deposit with the Opposite Party and by way of repayment of the recurring deposit, the Opposite Party had issued a cheque for Rs.1,76,805/ bearing No.259985 dated 7.3.2015 drawn on Canara bank, Mangalore. At the time of issuance of the cheque, the Opposite Party had assured that the Opposite Party would keep sufficient balance in its account, when the cheque is presented for payment was returned with an endorsement Funds Insufficient.
After the return of the cheque complainant made several attempts to contact the office people of the Opposite Party personally as well as over the phone, but the Opposite Party has not paid the said amount of Rs.1,76,805/, hence the complainant got issued a lawyers notice dated 25.5.2015 informing the Opposite Party regarding the dishonour of the cheque. But Opposite Party failed to pay the said amount. Hence the above complaint filed by the complainant before this forum under section 2(1)(C)(D) and (F) of the C.P.Act 1986 (here in after referred to as the Act) seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,76,805/ and Rs.2,00,000/ as damages with interest at 18% p.a. from 7.3.2015.
II. Version Notice served to the opposite parties by RPAD but not served, hence complainant took paper publication inspite of paper publication the Opposite Party not present before the fora nor represented the case hence placed exparte.
III. In support of the above complaint, the complainant Mr. Vinaychandra D. Suvarna, filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C3. Since Opposite Party placed exparte not lead any evidence.
IV. In view of the above said facts, the points for arise for our consideration in the case are:
- Whether the complaint is maintainable under consumer protection Act?
- Whether the Complainant proved that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the arguments submitted by the complainant and also considered the materials that, placed before the Fora and answered the points are as follows:
Point No. (i) : Negative
Point No. (ii) and (iii) : Does not arise
Point No. (iv): As per the final order.
REASONS
V. POINTS No. (i) : It is the case of the complainant that, he had deposited a recurring deposit with Opposite Party for that, Opposite Party issued cheque for Rs.1,76,805/. When the complainant presented the cheque was returned with Funds Insufficient. After several request from the complainant Opposite Party not paid the amount. The original deposit receipt issued by the Opposite Party is returned while issuing the cheque.
Now the points for consideration, to prove the case of the complainant not produced any documents to show that the complainant deposited the amount with Opposite Party. Except Ex.C1 i.e. cheque bearing no. 259985 dated 7.3.2015 for Rs.1,76,805/ the complainant not produced any document to show that the Opposite Party is the service provider and the complainant is a consumer. Whatever pleading pleaded by the complainant is beyond the C.P.Act the alleged complaint before the fora is under section 138 of N.I. Act and nowhere the pleading and documents shows that the consumer dispute between the parties the complainant not taken service from the Opposite Party. The service of the Opposite Party if any , had closed at the time of issuing cheque if the Opposite Party committed offence under section 138 of N.I. Act then the option left open the complainant to appear before the concerned authority and this fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The purpose of issuing Ex.C1 is not established. The complainant stating that the original receipt issue by the Opposite Party already returned to the Opposite Party while issuing the cheque if so, defiantly the copy of the receipt would have produced before the fora, Further the Ex.C2 reply notice also reveals only regarding cheque. Therefore the complainant is not establish the case and benefit of doubt the complaint is dismissed. Therefore discussing point no.2 and 3 does not arise.
POINTS No. (iv): In the result, accordingly we pass the following Order.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 5 directly dictated by Member to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 8th May 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(LAVANYA M RAI) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Vinaychandra D. Suvarna
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Original cheque for Rs.1,76,805/- issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant.
Ex.C2: The two lawyers notice sent to the Opposite Party.
Ex.C3: The two postal acknowledgement of the Opposite Party.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated: 08.05.2017 MEMBER
