Date of Complaint : 02/03/2015

                                  Date of Disposal :08/10/2015

IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

  JUDGEMENT BY SRI.V.A. PATIL, PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This is the complaint filed by the complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act, against the OP, praying for allotment of plot as agreed, or for refund of money paid, along with interest, compensation and cost of the petition, for the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by the opponent.

    

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has invested some money in the scheme of OP through the agent at Kushalnagar who represented the OP, and the said scheme was called as OWN A FARM LAND” forRs.27,000/-.It is the case of the complainant that the sponsor of the OP collected the money in the nature of pigmy of Rs.50/- per day, and each month the said B.U. Poovamma collected Rs.1,300/- to Rs.1,500/-.Further complainant submits that the said scheme expires on 25/04/2014.But after the expiry of the said due date, the OP keep on dodging to allot the plot.Further the complainant submits that however by admitting the liability the OP has given the cheque on 22/12/2014 for the sum of Rs.26,871/- which also dishonoured, with theendorsement “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”.

    

3. The complainant further submits that the OP has played undue advantage and thereby the OP defrauded the complainant and taken the disadvantage of good faith and played the fraud and misrepresentation and the service of the OP appears to be bogus and the OP played untrade practice and deficiency of service.Inspite of the notice also the OP has not complied the request of the complainant.Hence, with no other way the complainant approached this Fora seeking the remedy against the OP.

    

4. After registering the case the notice was issued to the OP.The same is served and the OP remained absent.Hence, the OP placed exparte on 26/03/2015.

    

5. The complainant in support of his case filed the affidavit and the written arguments.

    

6. Heard the argument.The points that arise for our consideration are;

    

7. Whether the complaint proves that this Form has got jurisdiction to try this complaint?

8. Whether the complainant proves the averments of the complaint and the deficiency of service by the OP?

9. What order?

    

10. Our finds on the above points are as follows;

                 Point No.1 Negative

           Point No.2 Negative

           Point No.3 As per the final order

R E A S O N S

1. Point No.1:- In the instant case the complainant submitted that the OP is residing at the Bangalore address furnished in the complaint.  Further at para No.3 & 16 he submits that he has joined the scheme of the OP through B.U. Poovamma of Kushalnagar the sponsor of the OP.  Inspite of two adjournments, the complainant has not made efforts to file the impleading application.  Unless she is made as party to the complaint, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint.  Hence, we answer the point no.1 in the “NEGATIVE.

    

2. Point No.2:- Following points to be considered  

    

3. In para No.4 of the complaint it is stated that the complainant Joined the scheme by purchaser I.D. No.413446 on 01/11/2014.Further states that the scheme expires on 25/04/2014.How it is possible?

4. In para No.5 of the complaint it is stated that the provisional allotment letter is issued.But the same is not submitted with the complaint.

5. In para No.7 of the complaint it is stated that after the expiry of the due date 25/04/2014 the respondent keep on dodging to allot the plot.Where as at para No.4 above it is stated that the scheme expires on 25/04/2012.The complainant himself is confused and not sure about the date of joining and expiry of the scheme.

6. In para No.8 of the complaint it is stated that, “however admitting the liability of the OP to pay the amount, which the OP has collected and issued the cheque dated 22/12/2014 for a sum of Rs.26,817/- drawn on SBI”where as at para No.9 complainant states that he has submitted the same to his banker Canara Bank for collection on 02/12/2014.

        All the above mentioned dates and facts are contradictory to each other and the same are vague misleading and confusing.

1. In support of the complaint, the complainant has filed the affidavit, and at para no.3 of the same, complainant states that he has filed the above suit against the deft for “PERMANENT INJUNCTION” The question of relief of permanent injunction will never arise before this Forum.

2. In support of the complaint, the complainant has filed the affidavit and written arguments also wherein the same mistakes are reiterated.

    

    

3. In the top noted complaint the council for the complainant has filed the vakalath not on behalf of the complainant, rather on behalf of the OP, by mentioning the name of the OP in the specified space.The same is confused, for whom the said council has filed the vakalath.

         Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities either the council for the complainant or the complainant have not tried to clarify / rectify the confusions/ mistakes supra.  Hence, we answer the point No.2 in negative.

    

4. Point No.3:- In view of the above discussion we proceed to pass the following ;

    

   O R D E R

    

5. COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.

6. However the parties shall bear their own cost.

7. Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this  08^th day of OCTOBER 2015)

        (LATHA.M.S.)           (V.A. PATIL)            (K.D. PARVATHY)      

           MEMBER               PRESIDENT                 MEMBER                     

ANNEXURE