Date of Filing : 04.08.2011

  Date of Order : 27.03.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

Dated 27^th MARCH 2012

PRESENT

Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL,   …….                PRESIDENT

Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB.                        ……..     MEMBER

Smt. K.G.SHANTALA                                         ……..     MEMBER

CC No. 171 / 2011

Sri. M. Thippareddy,

S/o. Munivenkatappa,

M/s. Lakshmi Agency,

C/o. Nagaraja Provision Store,

Near Syndicate Bank, Kataripalya,

Kolar – 563 101.

(By Sri. T.M. Shivanna, Adv.)                                ……. Complainant

V/s.

1. The Managing Director / CEO,

    The National Head Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,

    C/o. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,

    Old Mumbai Pune Highway Road,

    Akuradi,

    Pune – 411 035.    

2. The Manager,

    Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,

    J.P. Nagara, 3^rd Phase,

    Sarakki Industries Layout,

    Bangalore – 560 078.

   (By Sri. C. Ramakrishna, Adv.)                            …… Opposite Parties

ORDER

By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction to the Ops to pay to the Complainant balance amount and deposit amount with interest and to continue the Agency of the Complainant are necessary:

OP1 is Head Office of OP2.  Earlier the Branch was at “Anugraha”, No. 29, 12^th Cross, Swimming Pool Extn., Malleswaram, Bangalore – 560 078 and at that time Complainant applied for the Agency for collection and seizing work.  It was granted to the  Complainant and the Complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- as security deposit therein.  As per the work allotment order, Complainant has worked under M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agency and submitted claim list between June 2009 & February 2010.  He claimed Rs.2,46,818/- from the OPs for his work, but they paid only Rs.1,04,806/- and the remaining amount has not been paid and they have not returned the security deposit also.  OP2 which was earlier at “Anugraha” has shifted to the present address in J.P. Nagar without the knowledge of the Complainant.  They are not giving Agency to the Complainant and any work to the Complainant. Hence, Complainant issued notice to OP on 24.12.2010 and OP has issued reply notice dtd. 04.01.2011 admitting the Agency and calling upon the Complainant to furnish some documents and Complainant has submitted the same.  Even then Ops have not settled the claim.  Hence the Complaint.

2.       In brief version of the Ops are:-

          Complainant is not a consumer and the relief claimed cannot be granted.  Complaint has to be thrown out in view of ILR 2003 Kar 2003 & 1994 (1) SCC 243.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases, Complainant has filed his affidavit.  OP has filed Memo stating that their version and documents were read as their evidence.  Arguments were heard. 

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are as under:

POINTS

(A)  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

(B)  What Order

5.       Our answers for the above points are as under:

(A)  Negative

(B)  As per detailed order for the following reasons

REASONS

6.       Point Nos. A & B – Pleadings of the parties are summarized supra and the same be read herein again.  Complainant has stated that he has taken Agency of collection from OP2 who was having its Branch at “Anugraha”, No. 29, 12^th Cross, Swimming Pool Extn., Malleswaram, Bangalore – 560 078 and it was the said OP2 who entered into an agreement of agency with the Complainant and for that he is entitled to certain amounts, that means all transaction took place at Bangalore and not at Kolar.  Hence, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.

7.       Further Complainant has said that he had done work under M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agency. That means he was not appointed by the Ops, but he has been appointed by Sri Lakshmi Agency, that Sri Lakshmi Agency is not a party to the proceedings.  If at all any seizing work has been given to the Complainant, if at all any Agency has been given, it is by the Sri Lakshmi Agency and that Sri Lakshmi Agency should have been a party to the proceedings, but that has not been done.  Complainant has not produced any Agency agreement entered into between the OP2 at Malleswaram and himself before this Forum.  All the documents that have produced by the Complainant are by and between Lakshmi Agency and the Ops.  If  Lakshmi Agency has engaged services of the Complainant as their Agent to recover anything on behalf of any of the Ops, it is for the Lakshmi Agency to answer the claim.  No document has been executed by any of the Ops in favour of the Complainant.  Even security deposit of Rs.50,000/- was given to Lakshmi Agency in the name of the OP.  Even rental agreement is in the name of the Lakshmi Agency.  Hence, how can the Complainant is entitled to claim anything from the OP?

8.       Even otherwise, Complainant says he is entitled to certain commission regarding work done as a seizing & collecting Agent, that means it is agency commission for which Complainant can never be termed as consumer.  He has not purchased any goods or availed any services from the OP.  It is purely a contract of the Agency, and if there is any breach, Complainant had to approach Civil Court and not Consumer Redressal Forum as rightly contended. 

9.       In this case, what are the terms of contract of agency? What is the commission agreed? What are the works that have been done? What is the amount to be paid, how much is paid, all these require detailed pleading, detailed evidence, detailed cross examination and detailed scrutiny of the records which cannot be done in a summary way.  If the Complainant is entitled to, he can approach Civil Court seeking recovery of any amount for which this order will not come any way. 

10.     Regarding Rs.50,000/- towards security deposit also Complainant is at liberty to approach Civil Court.  Further Complainant wants that he is to be given agency work by the OP, Agency is entered into between the Lakshmi Agency and the Complainant and not by OPs.  If he is entitled to, he can approach Civil Court either against OP or against Lakshmi Agency as he deemed fit.  For that this Order will not come in the way.  The case of the Complainant is that Complainant wants mandatory injunction directing the OP to give him Agency work; that cannot be done.  Giving agency work depends on many factors which cannot be decided in a summary way.  Hence, complaint as such is not maintainable.  There cannot be and there is no deficiency in work.  Hence, we hold the points accordingly and pass the following order:

ORDER

1.       Complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

2.       Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.

3.       Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

4.       Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of March 2012.

T. NAGARAJA          K.G.SHANTALA           H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO

    Member                         Member                                       President

SSS