D V S PHANINDHRA, S/O DHARA SUBRAMANYAM Vs. K BABU AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the unsuccessful complainant in CC 30/2008 before the District Forum II, Tirupathi and on the dismissal of the complaint, this appeal is filed questioning that the order is erroneous both on question of fact and law.

(2.) THE facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, who is a B -Tech student of Siddartha Engineering College, Puttur, approached second opposite party for financial assistance for prosecuting his higher studies and to purchase a computer. The second opposite party sanctioned loan for Rs.45,000/ - under loan Account Bearing no. UEL 1578. The loan is payable with interest at 9% pa out of the said loan a sum of Rs.20,000/ - was given to meet educational fees. The remaining amount of Rs.25,000/ - was issued in the form of pay order bearing No. 328688 dated 14.09.2005 in the name of the first opposite party for supply of Intel Computer worth Rs.30,000/ - . The complainant had already paid Rs.5000/ - towards advance payment . So pay order was intended for the remaining amount of Rs.25,000/ -. After receiving the said pay order, the first opposite party failed to supply computer as a result of which he suffered in prosecuting his studies. The first opposite party had closed his shop situate at Gandhi Road so he could not contact him. Further, after ascertaining his address, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 09.01.2008 requiring him to supply the computer or to refund the amount with interest thereon. The first opposite party failed to comply with the demand. The act or omission amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

(3.) THE opposite parties 1 and 2 resisted it filing separate versions by denying the allegations that the complainant filed the case by suppressing real facts. The complainant is a belated one and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The alleged loan amount was paid on 14.09.2005. The complaint was filed in the year 2008 after lapse of 3 years. The first opposite part had provided a computer to the complainant on receipt of payment of Rs.25,000/ - and that the complainant was duly satisfied with the computer supplied. The second opposite party had already closed his loan account and thereafter a fresh loan was also applied for by the complainant. As such, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed for.