Brief facts of the case are that petitioner approached the respondent Bank to provide him Toyota Corolla car on auto loan basis / installments but his case was rejected. Lateron, the petitioner came to know that respondent gave the vehicle to some other person but showed the same to have been sold in petitioner's name whereas neither the petitioner was delivered any vehicle nor he opened consumer loan account No.1-11 00225207. Against this background, the petitioner filed a claim for recovery of suit amount of Rs.1092000/- on the contention that respondent's services proved defective, hence this petition.
2. The respondent contested petitioner's claim on the objections, inter alia that this court is not competent to adjudicate on parties' controversy as neither the petitioner is their consumer nor their services were defective. Besides filing their written statement, the respondent also moved an application for dismissal of petitioner's claim. Both the parties addressed their arguments on the point of jurisdiction.
3. It would appear from the contents of petition, that respondent allegedly defrauded the petitioner.
Relationship of "Consumer" and "service provider" between parties is also not made out, therefore, the petition is returned for presentation to a court of competent jurisdiction as parties' controversy relates to fraud allegedly committed by the respondent Bank. After completion, file be consigned to record room.