<br /> <br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed by the complainant for getting a new Agency sanctioned in his name and for compensation and cost. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant had applied for the sanctioning of an Agency in Kottamkara Village on 11.10.2004 by remitting a sum of Rs.10/-. The complainant is an ex-service man and the Agency is applied as a matter of livelihood. There is no other existing Agency in the area from where he applied. The opp.party has not sanctioned the Agency without any reasons. This caused much mental agony and tension to this complainant and hence prays for the reliefs.<br /> The opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complainant is not maintainable either in law on or facts. There is no consumer dispute between the complainant and opp.parties. The non-sanctioning of an Agency in favour of the complainant is not a consumer dispute as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act sanctioning or cancellation of Agency is not a service done by the opp.party upon receiving the complainant’s application for agency. The opp.party has conducted site verification and it was found that the proposed Agency site is very near the site of an existing Agent, Mohammed Shah. Since his volume of business is satisfactory, it was decided not to sanction an additional Agency to the complainant. This fact was intimated to the complainant vide letter dt. 18.12.2004. It is the discretion of the opp.party to sanction or not to sanction agency. Nobody can claim as of right any new Agency, which is the absolute property of the opp.parties. It is incorrect to say that there is no other Agency within a radius of 1 km. In Kottamkara Grama Panchayat. The complainant is not entitled to get compensation from the opp.parties. Even assuming that no Agency is sanctioned, it will not amount to any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. This complaint is filed on an experimental basis and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The point that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> [i] Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> [ii] Reliefs and cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined and marked Ext.P1 and P2<br /> <br /> <br /> For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined and marked Exts. D1 to D3.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Points [i] & [ii]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant’s case is that he had applied for a Milma Agency. That application was rejected the said application. According to the opp.parties, they had rejected the application of the complainant after making due enquiries an d investigations. Here the matter in dispute in the non-sanctioning of a Milma Agency. Sanctioning of a Milma Agency is a business of the opp.party. The sanctioning non- sanction of Agency is an administrative decision of the opp.party. The sanctioning or non-sanctioning of Milma Agency is not a service rendered by this opp.party. Hence complainant has not availed any service of the opp.parties and there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opp.parties. So this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Further it is to be stated that after receiving the application form from the complainant, opp.parties had made due enquiries and investigations and after that, they rejected the application submitted by the complainant. This fact was intimated to the complainant vide letter . Ext.D2 on a careful consideration of the entire evidence in this case, we are of the view that the complainant has not availed any service as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act from the opp.party. The opp.party has denied the application of the complainant on reasonable ground and it was intimated to the complainant by sending Ext.D2. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 5th day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Chandrasekharan Nair<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Cash receipt<br /> P2. – Ex-serviceman Identity card<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – Prasanna Kumar<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. – Application<br /> D2. – Reply letter dt. 18.12.2004<br /> D3. – Complaint filed by Mohammedsha <br />