ORDERS ON MAINTAINAABILITY ON ADMISSION

1. Heard the arguments of the complainants. Perused entire complaint averments. On the maintainability of the complaint the Commission opined as follows.

2. Admittedly there is a transaction between the complainant and OP. Where in the complainant approached the OP for supply and  installation of 5KV Solar grid system and as per quotation a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- is fixed for the  supply of the said item. The supply of said item and as per demand of the OP, the complainant has paid an advance amount of 60% as per the quotation. It is also apparent from the face of the record that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- totally on fixing of the said item. It is also explicitly pleaded that despite of the receipt of advance amount, the OP has failed to supply the above said item as per agreed terms and conditions. In spite of several requests and multiple approaches of the complainant, when the OP has failed to supply the said item to the complainant, demanded for the refund of the advance amount and by adhering to the demand of the complainant the OP has refunded a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- by deducting a sum of Rs.15,000/-. As per the pleadings of the complaint these facts is admitted by the complainant. It is also specifically admitted by the complainant that despite of the receipt of Rs.2,05,000/- as the complainant has initiated the present complaint in order to recover the sum of Rs.55,000/-. The complainant has  failed to explain how he is entitled for the refund of sum of Rs.55,000/-.

3. On the maintainability of the complaint it is observed that admittedly an advance amount of sum of Rs.2,05,000/- is received by the complainant which is much prior to the filing of the present complaint. On this point the Ratio of the Appellate Court in 1.  National Insurance Co.Ltd. V/s Noli Ram and sons  referred  in 2017(4)CPR 388(NC) , 2.National Insurance Co.Ltd. V/s Manjit Singh and others  referred in 2017(4)CPC 384(NC)

(1)Privity of Contract: It is also well settled that provisions of Consumer Protection Act,1986 are not applicable as the appellant-complainant ceases as per the Act and the privity of the contract between the consumer and service provider, came at an end, the moment when the appellant-complainant has accepted the amount unconditionally.

4. The rule of appellate court laid down the ratio as and when the complainant received any payment on settlement without raising any objections there and then the privity of contract comes to end and the subsequently the complainant has no cause of action to maintain the legal proceedings against the OP by seeking refund of the amount by way of and accepting the payment of sum of Rs.2,05,000/- as full and final settlement without rising any objections. The complainant loses the right and he has no locus standy to sue the OP seeking relief of refund.

5. In the present complaint the complainant has acknowledged the payment of sum of Rs.2,05,000/- as full and final settlement and initiation of  present  complaint subsequently is not maintainable either in law and facts. The ratio of appellate authority is also laid down that   the present complaint deserved to be rejected as it  is not maintainable for the above reasons. In view of the above discussions the complaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold on the admission of the complaint for the above reasons.

                             ORDER

Complaint is rejected as not maintainable.

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

         MEMBER                                        MEMBER