- (1.) THE opposite parties in OP.No.65/2003, on the file of District Forum, Tirunelveli, having suffered an adverse order, have come to this Commission, to erase the same, as appellant.
(2.) THE complainant/ respondent has filed a case before the District Forum, seeking certain reliefs, interalia contending that he had applied to the 2nd respondent, expressing his willingness to establish Maruthi Authorised Service Station (MASS), by depositing a sum of Rs.1500/ -, that as instructed in LOI, he had remitted the sum of Rs.10000/ -, that he having fulfilled all the necessary requirements for MASS, the opposite parties have failed to issue necessary orders, thereby they have committed breach of agreement, which should be construed as deficiency in service, that by the negligent act of the opposite parties, he had incurred loss, suffered mental agony, etc., and that therefore they should be directed to refund the application fee of Rs.1500/ -, that they should be further directed to return the security deposit of Rs.10000/ -, and a further sum of Rs.40000/ -, spent for the improvement made, and that a sum of Rs.1 lakh being compensation.
(3.) THE appellant/ opposite parties, by filing their written version, opposed the complaint, as if the same is not maintainable, because the complainant is not a consumer, and that the Forum has no jurisdiction, that the complainant has failed to perform his duties as agreed under the agreement, despite reminders, which should follow, there is no breach of agreement or any negligent act on their part, thereby prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The District Forum, though the opposite parties have not appeared before the District Forum to contest the case, took the complaint of the complainant to decide on merit. In this effort, the District Forum has exhibited Ex.A1 to A16, as well as Ex.B1 to B7. The evaluation of the above materials, including the pleadings, brought to surface that the complainant has made out a case, that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by their negligent act, and having done so, they are not entitled to retain the application fee and security deposit. Thus concluding, a direction came to be passed on 20.12.2005, which is under challenge before this Commission.;