Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No. 3332/2017

Rashid Khan S/O Shri. Mohd. Zakir, C/O M/S Manjul Consultancy Service, Opposite Post Office Chauraha, Kotla Road, Firozabad                                                                                                                      ………….Appellant

1- MOS Utility, 1^st Block no. 206-207, Block no. 310,

    Orient Industrial Estate, Mind Space, Off Link Road,

    Malad-West Mumbai-64.

2- MOS fins, Block No. 310, Orient Industrial Estate, Mind

    Space, Off Link Road, Malad-West Mumbai-64.                                                                                                                                                      ………Respondents

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.

Sri Vinay Pratap Singh Rathore, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

Date  31.8.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Vikas Saxena, Member: This appeal has been filed under section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgement and order dated 04. 01. 2017 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Firozabad in Complaint case number 135 of 2013 Rashid Khan versus M O S utility & another, rejecting the claim.

The complainant filed his complaint with the averments that he is an unemployed youth and the opposite party number- 1 represented itself a national level business correspondent of the State bank of India and also represented that the opposite party number 2 was setting of a large number of customer service points for providing basic banking services on behalf of the State bank of India. The

-2-

opposite party number two approached the complainant and appointed him as one of the Customer Service Point. As per the requirements of opposite parties, the complainant deposited the sum of Rs. 49, 000/- on the 24. 04. 2012 and Rupees 50,000/- on date 26. 04. 2012 and a tripartite agreement was executed among the complainant and the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant contacted opposite parties through phone and e-mails to get the word started but no one was started. Consequently, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposing parties but the opposite party did not respond to this legal notice. The complainant filed his complaint for refund of Rs. 99,000/- and also Rs. 50,000/- as a compensation for physical and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as legal expenses.

The opposite party/respondent of this appeal is denied all the allegations of the complaint in their written statement, filed during proceedings of the complaint. They averred that the present complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive and mala fide intentions and to malign the hard - earned reputation of the renowned airlines. The opposite party submitted that majority of your lines across the country, follow a general norm and practice of having various level agents, or booking of passengers as it is impossible to single handedly do all bookings for passengers. The set comes in and was aware of all terms and conditions of the opposite party and was ready to invest money in the project. It is further averred that the complaint is also barred under section 11 of The Consumer P