M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The 1st opposite party, having suffered an adverse order, has come to this commission for redressal.
(2.) The 1st respondent, as complainant has filed a case against the appellant, and the 2nd respondent, claiming a sum of Rs.75000/- as refund, as well as for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation, alleging that on the assurance given by the 2nd opposite party, a sum of Rs.75000/- was paid to the 1st opposite party, by pay order, who had agreed to deliver a Silver Grey C5E II model vehicle, and that as assured, not only failed to deliver the vehicle, but also credited the amount in another name, and the failure on the part of the 1st opposite party, despite notice, to pay the amount, amounts to deficiency in service, and therefore they should be directed to pay the above said amount.
(3.) The 1st opposite party/ appellant, denying all the allegations in the complaint, would contend that there is no privity of contract between the 1st opposite party and the complainant, that a payment order for Rs.75000/- was received from one C.H. Jayalalitha, through her representative, that no pay order was received form the complainant either directly from her or through the 2nd opposite party, that if at all the complainant should have been the victim of the advertisement, said to have been published by the 2nd opposite party, for which the 1st opposite party cannot be held responsible, that when there was a demand, it was verified, that the amount was credited in the name of C.H. Jayalalitha, and when C.H.Jayalalitha was contacted, at later point of time, she said, she will have no claim whatsoever, and thereafter the amount was tendered, but the complainant refused, and this being the position, there is no breach of agreement or there is no deficiency in service, and therefore the claim is not maintainable.;