Karnataka

Kolar

CC/8/2016

Sri.P.Balaji - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional controller - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.L.Manjunatha

08 Jul 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 03/03/2016

Date of Order: 08/07/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 08^th DAY OF JULY 2016

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 08 OF 2016

Sri.P.Balaji,

S/o.Rangaiah,

Aged About 41 Years,

R/at: 16A, Main Road,

Dwarakanagara,

Bangalore.

 

(Complainant Sri.P. Balaji through

Special Power of Attorney Sri. Mahesh,

S/o.Munivenkataswamy,

Aged About 27 Yers, R/at:

Keelukote, Kolar.)

 

(Rep. by Sri. L. Manjunatha, Advocate)                        ….  Complainant.

 

 V/s

The Divisional Controller,

K.S.R.T.C., Kolar Division,

KOLAR.

(Rep. by Sri. B. Kumar, Advocate)                       …. Opposite Party.

: ORDER:

BY SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, MEMBER

01.   Through this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought refund of Rs.1,10,712/. with interest from the date of the deposit till realization from the OP. 

 

02.   Summary of the case:

(a)    The complainant contends that, on 12.08.2015 the OP called for on.line tender through advertisement regarding running of general store .3 at Srinivaspura KSRTC Bus.Stand in premises bearing No.913/2015.16.  And that he participated in the said on.line tender by paying Rs.46,500/. towards EMD amount.  And that as per the letter dated: 11.09.2015 issued by the OP he paid Rs.46,536/ and one month rent of Rs.15,506/. and service tax of Rs.2,170/.  And that thus total payment of Rs.64,212/. was made on 21.08.2015 by way of cash vide receipt No.007466.

 

(b)    He has contended further that, the OP authorities did not deliver possession of the said premises though they insisted to pay further rent.  And that this amounted to deficiency in service.  And that on 07.01.2016 he gave notice through RPAD which is served on him.  And that there is no reply.

 

(c)    The complainant with list dated: 03.03.2016 has submitted following 04 documents:.

(i)       Original copy of the receipt.

(ii)      Original copy of the legal notice

(iii)    Postal receipt.

(iv)     Postal Acknowledgment original copy.

 

03.   The OP has appeared through the said learned advocate and submitted written version denying claim of the complainant.  Further it is contended that, the complainant without making further compliance has come up with this false complaint.  Thus OP contends to dismiss the complaint.

 

04.   On 03.05.2016 the advocate for the complainant has submitted the said Special Power of Attorney.  On 06.05.2016 the advocate for complainant with Memo has submitted the reply dated: 29.02.106.  Both the parties have submitted their affidavit evidence and written arguments.

 

05.   On 05.07.2016 the advocate for the OP has submitted model copy of the application for participation in auction with regard to Kolar Division.  On this day itself heard the oral arguments as advanced by both the parties through their learned advocates.

 

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:.

1. Whether the OP is guilty of deficiency in service?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

3.  What order?       

 

07.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:.

POINT NO.1:.   In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:.   In the Affirmative.

 

POINT NO.3:.   As per the final order

                        for the following:.

 

 

REASONS

POINT Nos.1 & 2:.

08.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

(a)    It is not in dispute that the complainant having participated in the on.line tender made such payments on said dates to the OP to run general store being a self.employment.  So he was the consumer.  The said model application for participation in auction vide Clause.31 discloses that, non.compliance of the terms would result in EMD forfeiture.  And failure to remit security deposit and to enter in to an agreement within the stipulated time will also result in forfeiture of the deposit, cancellation and selection. 

 

(b)    The complainant has performed his part of the contract.  The very OP instead of complying by handing over the possession of the said stall went on insisting for further rent.  This is nothing but deficiency in service.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.1,10,712/. along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum by way of compensation from 03.03.2016 being the date of the complaint till realization for being recovered from the OP.

 

POINT NO.3:.

10.   We proceed to pass the following:.

ORDER

(01)  For the reasons stated above we have allowed this complaint with costs of Rs.2,500/. against this OP as under:.

 

(a)    The OP shall refund Rs.1,10,712/. to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 03.03.2016 being the date of the complaint till realization.

 

(b)    We grant time of one month to the OP to comply this order from the date of its communication.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 08^th DAY OF JULY 2016)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                         MEMBER                     PRESIDENT