SUDHIR CH. SAHU vs DUSSASAN SAHU

THE complainant in this case has prayed for a compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. His case is that he had taken a truck bearing No. O.S.C. 4375 for carrying on transport work for a term of two years from July, 1991 to July, 1993 from the opposite party. It is further alleged that he has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as hire charges in addition to a sum of Rs. 24,000/- which he had paid towards purchase of tyres and a sum of Rs. 6,000/- for doing some engine work. He has alleged that after the truck was given to him for the aforesaid transport work, the same was taken back by the opposite party after a short period of three months and his request to return the truck as per the agreement entered into between the parties having fallen to deaf ears, he has filed this case praying for refund of Rs. 80,000/- which he has paid to the opposite party towards hire charge and purchase of tyres and effecting the repair works and to give a direction to opposite party to place the vehicle at his disposal for the balance month. In addition to above he has prayed for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for the loss he has suffered due to withdrawal of the truck and deficiency in service.

THE opposite party does not appear nor file any show cause inspite of notice. We therefore proceed to dispose of the case on the materials available on record. From the documents filed by the complainant himself it appears that the vehicle was given to one Sethi Transport who has written a letter dated 30.10.1991 to the complainant that the vehicle is not properly working and a sum of Rs. 19,000/- and odd has been left due against him and they requested the complainant to make the truck available for their work. The case of the complainant is that after obtaining the vehicle from the opposite party he had engaged the vehicle with Sethi Transport. The complainant has filed another document dated 7.11.1997 from Sethi Transport addressed to the complainant himself saying that the vehicle was not available to be given to them and the complainant should make the truck available for their work and clear up the outstanding dues at the earliest. The next document that is an award given by some gentlemen before whom the dispute between the parties were placed. The said award is dated 12.1.1992. Since the terms and conditions of the award was not carried out by the parties, the Arbitrator passed second award dated 11.1.1993 for endorsement of the order. In the aforesaid circumstances, the claim raised by the complainant in this case is not entertainable for the reason that the Commission created under the Consumer Protection Act is not empowered to enforce the order of Arbitrators. That apart, the complainant has not filed a scrap of paper showing that as to what arrangements were made under the terms and conditions thereof said to have been made between the complainant and opposite party, nor the vehicle said to have been to him was withdrawn by me opposite party. We therefore find no merit in this case and hence dismiss the same. Mr. Biswanath Rath, Member-I agree. Complaint dismissed.