Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Honble Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President;
Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi & Mr. C.V. Subba Reddy, Members
GOURU LINGAIAH—Appellant
versus
N. CHANDRASHEKAR—Respondent
C.D.A. No. 191 of 1992—Decided on 16.2.1994
For the Appellant :M/s. Mohan Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondent: In person.
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the relationship between the parties as that of Creditor and Debtor, leading to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Money Circulation Scheme - The court held that the relationship between the parties is that of Creditor and Debtor and cannot be said there is 'deficiency in service'. It accordingly directed the parties to a Civil Court.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant contributed for 3 Memberships in Anand Enterprise Money Circulation Scheme and paid a sum of Rs. 10,840, but the opposite party did not refund the amount. The opposite party claimed that he is not the person running the scheme and that the complainant borrowed Rs. 18,000 from him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant did not produce any evidence to show that the opposite party is a proprietor or partner of the scheme. It held that the relationship between the parties is that of Creditor and Debtor and directed the parties to a Civil Court.
Issues: Dispute over refund for contributions to a money circulation scheme and a claim of debt owed by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to establish the opposite party's association with the scheme and the characterization of the relationship between the parties as that of Creditor and Debtor.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—The complainant whose complaint was dismissed in CD. No. 142 of 1991 preferred this appeal. His case was that he contributed for 3 Memberships in Anand Enterprise Money Circulation Scheme and paid towards those 3 Memberships a sum of Rs. 10,840/-. But the opposite party in spite of his claim did not refund the amount. The opposite party took a plea that he is not the person, that is running Anand Enterprise Money Circulation Scheme but it was run by Tadakamalla Sharavan Kumar, a cousin of the opposite party. It is also their case that the complainant borrowed Rs. 18,000/- from the opposite party, that is, Rs. 6000/- each membership and paid only Rs. 10,840/- and he has to pay the balance of the amount. The complainant was examined as PW1, no documents were marked on behalf of him. On a consideration of the evidence the District Forum held that the complainant did not produce any evidence to show that the opposite party is a proprietor or partner of Anand Enterprise Money Circulation Scheme. It further held even assuming that the appellant is proprietor or partner, the relationship between the parties is that of Creditor and Debtor and cannot be said there is "deficiency in service". It accordingly directed the parties to a Civil Court.
2. In this appeal it is submitted that the opposite party is due in a sum of Rs. 10,840/- towards the chits. Since the respondent denied in any way associated with Anand Enterprises Money Circulation Scheme, the District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that no relief can be granted against the opposite party. It also further held in the absence of any evidence adduced by the petitioner to show the relationship of a creditor and debtor, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
–
