Bangalore Urban 3rd Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
No.8, 6th Floor, Sahakara Bhavan, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560 052.
Complaint Case No. CC/11/526
1. Sri Lakshmipathy
Aged about 32 years,S/o Late Doreswamy Naidu,Proprietor,M/s.Annapoorna Enterprises,No.33/4,Pipeline Road,Yeshwanthapura,Bangalore-560022
………..Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sulekha.com New Media Pvt Ltd
No.19,Ground Floor,Shantha Complex,Lady Curzon Road,Bangalore-1,Represented by its Manager
2. The Corporate Office,New Sulekha.com New Media Pvt.Ltd.,
No.484 and 485,Pantheon plaza,4th Floor,Pantheon Road,Egmore,Chennai-8 Represented by its Manager
…………Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah PRESIDENT
HONORABLE Dr. Subhashini Member
HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA Member
PRESENT:
ORDER
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE – 560 052.
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MARCH 2011
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.526/2011
PRESENT:
Sri T. Rajashekharaiah, B.A. L.L.B.,
PRESIDENT
Sri. H.M.Shivalingappa, B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Smt. Dr. Subhashini, M.B.B.S.,
MEMBER
COMPLAINANT -
Sri Lakshmipathy,
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Late Doreswamy Naidu,
Proprietor,
M/s Annapoorna Enterprises,
No.33/4, Pipeline Road,
Yeshwanthapura,
BANGALORE – 560 022.
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTIES -
1.
Sulekha.com New Media Pvt. Ltd.,
No.19, Ground Floor,
Shantha Complex, Lady Curzon Road, BANGALORE – 560 001.
Represented by its Manager.
2.
The Corporate Office,
Sulekha.com New Media Pvt. Ltd.,
No.484 & 485, Pantheon Plaza,
4th Floor, Pantheon Road,
Egmore, CHENNAI – 8.
Represented by its Manager.
ORDER ON ADMISSION
1. This Complaint was filed on 15.03.2011 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the case are that there was an Agreement between the Complainant and the 1st Opposite Party to the effect that the 1st Opposite Party shall place orders from the customers for repair of refrigerator to the Complainant. An agreement dt.01.12.2010 came to be entered into between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 under which the 1st Opposite Party received Rs.49,635/- by way of cheque with terms and conditions that the 1st Opposite Party had to place four orders to the Complainant per day obtained from the customers for repair of refrigerator for a period of one year. But the 1st Opposite Party failed to comply with the terms of agreement and used to place one or two orders per day. Inspite of repeated requests to place orders as per terms agreed, the 1st Opposite Party did not comply the same. Inspite of service of legal notice dt.14.02.2011 to the Opposite Parties calling upon them to refund the amount with interest for breach of trust, there is no compliance by the Opposite Parties. Hence, aggrieved by the inaction by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has approached this Forum with a prayer for refund of Rs.49,635/- with interest at 24% p.a. till realization and to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation and also to award cost of the proceedings.
2. The case was posted for hearing on admission on 26.03.2011. The learned Counsel for the Complainant was present and the matter was heard.
3. In the circumstances, the following point arises for our consideration and decision and they are:
(i) Whether there is a sufficient cause to proceed with the Complaint?
4. POINT NO.1:- In our opinion, there is no reason to proceed with the Complaint. From perusal of the document at Annexure-1 dt.01.12.2010 and the averments in the Complaint, it is seen that an Order Form dt.01.12.2010 came to be entered into between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties wherein certain columns have been filled up showing payment of Rs.49,635/- by way of cheque dt.02.12.2009 and the package duration was one year and service category – home appliance services, refrigerator repair services. Though it appears to be an Order Form, there is no such terms and conditions to be complied by the respective parties. At no stretch of imagination, it appears to be an agreement between the parties as alleged by the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, the transaction between the parties as it is for commercial purpose. Further, the Complainant failed to produce any material to show that he comes within the Explanation to Clause-ii of Sec.2(1)(d) of the Act. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no good ground to proceed with the Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, we pass the following:
O R D E R
It is held that there is no reason to proceed with the Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, the Complaint is not admitted.
This Order is pronounced on this the 30th day of March 2011.
Dr. SUBHASHINI H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah]
PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE Dr. Subhashini]
Member
[HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA]
Member