COMPLAINANTS:

1. Sri. S. Siddappa, S/o. Siddaiah,

Aged 57 years, N.M.E.P. Section,

C.M.C., CHIKMAGALUR.



2. Peddanna, S/o. Guruvaiah,

Major, Driver, C.M.C.

CHIKMAGALUR.



3. Eshwarappa, S/o. Siddappa,

Major, II Division Clerk, C.M.C,

CHIKMAGALUR.

(By Sri. Gerald Dias, Adv.)

V/s

OPPONENTS:

1. Mysore Sales International Limited,

408, Mahendra Arcade,

3rd Floor, Kudumal Rangarao Road,

Karangalpady, Mangalore Branch,

MANGALORE – 575 003.

- ::: ORDERS ON ADMISSION ::: -

1. The complainants have filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opponents for the deficiency of service and alleged that the 1st opponent has offered to give a T.V. loan to the workers of Municipality to buy the product and the loan amount borrowed is to be returned in installments. Subsequently, took the signatures of the complainants to various forms, but instead of delivering the goods, the 1st opponent has paid an amount of Rs.23,000/- in cash to the each complainants on 06.09.2007.

At the time of payment, the 1st opponent has not disclosed the reason for payment. The concern of the 1st opponent is only to deliver the goods and not to pay the cash. Thereafter, the 1st opponent has obtained a letter from the 2nd opponent for deduction of the salary every month. As per the say of the 1st opponent, the 2nd opponent without disclosing the facts is deducting the amount from the salary of the complainants and so far they have deducted 18 monthly installments. At the time of payment of Rs.23,000/- to the each complainant, the copy of the documents have not been delivered.

2. Thereafter, the complainants have issued a notice dtd.21.03.2009 calling upon opponent to give the details of the loan documents, instead of giving the details the 1st opponent has given evasive reply. The 1st opponent has no authority to give the cash amount to the complainants and their duty is to deliver the goods to the complainants by obtaining necessary documents. Since the 1st opponent has failed to comply with the demands made in not furnishing the documents relating to either amount paid in cash or goods that is being delivered, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opponent.

3. Subsequently, the complainants have given an intimation to the 2nd opponent for not to deduct the amount from their salary. Inspite of service of notice, the 2nd opponent is deducting the amount from the salary of the complainants towards the installment. Therefore, the complainants pray for the direction not to deduct the amount from their salary and for return of the amount, which has already paid as the 1st opponent has not delivered the goods and also pray for interest.

4. The complainants have also filed an interim application under Section 13(B) of Consumer Protection Act, wherein they have prayed to restrain the 2nd opponent from deducting the amounts from their salary towards the installments.

5. Heard the arguments from both the sides on admission of this complaint as well as on Interim application.

6. Now, the points that arise for consideration of this Forum are as follows:-

i) Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act 1986?

ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opponent?

iii) What Order?

7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

i) Point No.1: In the Negative

ii) Point No.2: In the Negative

iii) Point No.3: See, as per order below

- ::: R E A S O N S ::: -

8. Point Nos.1 & 2: The complainants have alleged that the 1st opponent has offered to provide the loan to purchase the T.V. and other electronic goods and they have obtained the loan agreement. But instead of delivering the goods purchased by the complainants, the 1st opponent has issued cash of Rs.23,000/- to the each complainants on 06.09.2007 for which the complainants have not produced any documents before this Forum for perusal. Except the legal notice dtd.21.03.2009 and reply dtd.04.04.2009, no documents are produced before this Forum to show the transaction took place between them for admission and we noted that the 1st opponent having its business at Mangalore and the transaction also took place at Mangalore. Even though the complainants are residing at Chikmagalur, they have made the transaction at Mangalore as per the notice and complaint. As such, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In this ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9. The complainants are also seeking an interim order against the 2nd opponent for not to deduct the amount from their salary towards the installments but we are of the opinion that the 2nd opponent being a drawing officer is not deducting the amount voluntarily and it is only under the instructions from the complainants, the 2nd opponent is deducting the amount from the salary of the complainants and it is pertinent to note that merely making deduction from the salary of the complainant towards the installments will not create the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint to file the complaint against the opponents.

10. Before issuance of notice to 1st and 2nd opponents, we are of the opinion that as they have obtained loan to purchase products but after payment of 18 installments they come forward to return the payment made earlier towards the loan and we found that there is no cause of action in this complaint for alleging deficiency of service against the 1st and 2nd opponents. In this ground also, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and we found no reason to issue notice to 1st and 2nd opponents in this complaint. As such, we answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative.

11. Point No.3: In view of our findings on above points the complaint filed by the complainant has to be dismissed. In the result we pass the following order.

- :::O R D E R::: -

1. The complaint filed by the complainant against the opponents is hereby dismissed.

2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.