FRANCIS PERIERA AND ASSOCIATES vs KIRAN BABURAO MATKAR

WE are unable to see how the State Commission and the District Forum have thought it fit to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Revision Petitioner herein so as to render him liable for payment of compensation to the complainant.

THE complainant who claims to be an enterprenuer had wanted to start a lodging and boarding hotel and he had approached the Revision Petitioner"Shri Francis Periera, who is a Management Consultant, with a request to prepare a project report for the proposed Hotel and Beer-bar. The object and purpose of the complainant in getting the project report prepared was to place it before a Nationalised Bank for obtaining financial assistance from the Bank. The grievance with which the complainant approached the District Forum was that the Opposite Party, namely, M/s. Francis Periera and Associates, had undertaken to secure a loan for him from a bank and as consideration for the said service to be rendered by them, they had been paid Rs. 20,000/- and inasmuch as they had failed to secure the loan, they should be held guilty of deficiency in service and made liable to pay him adequate compensation. It was on this basis the claim for compensation was advanced against the Revision Petitioner herein. On going through the records of this case, we find that the Revision Petitioner had made a request to the Opposite Party only to prepare a project report, which the Revision Petitioner (Opposite Party) had in fact prepared To make the matter even worse the amount oi Rs. 20,000/- said to have been paid to the Opposite Party by the complainant was paid by a cheque dated 26.8.1989, but the same was dishonoured by the Bank and the resultant position is that no pie has been given by way of consideration for the service that has been rendered by preparation of the project report that it had been called upon to prepare. There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and they are set aside.

THE complaint petition is dismissed and the complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of costs to the Revision Petitioner herein. The aforesaid amount of costs shall peremptorily be paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which action shall be taken against the complainant by the District Forum in enforcement of this order under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.