FAKROUDINE ADAMJEE vs YUSUFF ABDULLA

THIS appeal, by the complainant, is directed against the order dated 18.2.1992, passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in complaint No. 1078/90 dismissing the complaint. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows : 1. The complainant had purchased from the opposite party-authorized dealer a Virat/Philips V.C.R. for a sum of Rs. 15,200/- on 26.5.1988. The warrantee period was for one year which expired on 26.5.1989.

THE complainant, further averred that he gave to the opposite party the said V.C.R. on 26.2.90 for repairs. THE opposite party did not return the V.C.R. after its repair. THE opposite party made attempts to return the complainant the damaged V.C.R. So he did not take the delivery of the V.C.R.s. and demanded either refund of the purchase money of Rs. 15,200/- or to replace the said V.C.R. with a new one. The opposite party filed its version and disputed the allegations contained in the complaint. The opposite party, further averred that the V.C.R. was kept ready after its repair and the complainant was requested to collect the article paying the repair charges. But instead of collecting the article on payment of repair charges, the complainant has filed the complaint on un-true allegations and sought the complaint to be dismissed.

During enquiry, the complainant submitted that he had no oral evidence to adduce on 9.5.1991. The order sheet dated 9.5.1991, reads as under : "Sri D.G. Shailendra Kumar files power for complainant and states that he does not propose adduce any oral evidence. Sri Srikanta Swamy, advocate for O.P. files a memo for adjournment by about four weeks. Call on 11.6.1991."

The order sheets further would go to show that thereafter the parties were heard and the orders came to be recorded on 18.2.1992.

WE have called for the records and received. WE have also heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the complainant gave the V.C.R. for its repair to the opposite party on 26.2.1990. According to the complainant, the opposite party failed to return the said V.C.R. but played a fraud on him and attempted to return a damaged V.C.R. The opposite party denied the allegations and averred that the said V.C.R. which was given by the complainant for repairs was repaired and the complainant was at liberty to collect the same on making payment of the repair charges.

AS referred above, the complainant did not lead any evidence to prove the allegations made by him. The District Forum, Bangalore, found that the allegations of fraud, misrepresentation and cheating against the opposite party, had remained only at the stage of allegations, having not been proved, and it also held that such allegations of fraud etc. cannot be gone into by the Forums, having regard to the limited scope of enquiry under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, and in that view, dismissed the complaint. We do not find any flaw in the reasoning adopted by the District Forum. There is absolutely no ground to interfere in the order dated 18.2.1992 recorded by the District Forum, Bangalore, in Complaint. No. 1078/90. ORDER In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.