Punjab

Sangrur

CC/509/2018

Rakesh Kumar Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aadhaar Market - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sandeep Kumar Hareri

04 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 509

 Instituted on:   06.12.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     04.01.2021

 

Rakesh Kumar Singla S/o Sh. Sham Lal, Proprietor of Suvidha Centre, Opposite Tehsil Office, Lehragaga, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

Aadhaar Market, Near UCO Bank, Arkwas Road, Lehragaga through its Manager/MD.

             ….Opposite party. 

 

For the complainant    : Shri S.K.Hareri, Adv.              

For the OP                : Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Adv.

 

 

Quorum                                           

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

Shri Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

ORDER BY:     

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President.

1.             Shri Rakesh Kumar Singla, complainant filed this complaint pleading that the complainant  is a RTI Activist and he is also National President of VOICE Organization and National President of Shiv Bhole Langer Committee, Lehragaga, who is providing free langer during Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra.  The case of the complainant is that brother of the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar visited the shop of OP on 14.10.2018 and purchased grocery items and also purchased Shakti Namkeen Roasted Cornflakes which were placed in the corner/rack being  displayed for consumption during Navratras.  The items were purchased vide invoice number 5511 dated 14.10.2018. Further case of the complainant is that the brother of the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar handed over the above said navratra special items to the complainant. The complainant consumed it in the plate served to him and when he saw the wrapper, then he stunned to see that these are corn made meaning thereby it is a grain product, whereas as per Hindu Mythology, Custom and ritual, consumption of grain is strictly prohibited for people taking fast/varat.  All these acts on the part of the OP amounts to gravest deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  As such, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the OP, but of no avail.  As such, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             After the notice being served upon the opposite party, the opposite party filed written version. In written version, it is admitted that on 14.10.2018 bill number 5511 dated 14.10.2018 was issued from the store of OP. It is specifically denied that any such pamphlet as alleged words “Navratra Special” were hoarded on any rack of the store of OP.  It is stated further that the complainant Rakesh Kumar is not a consumer. It is stated further that India has so many religion and every religion follow their worship culture.  Every Hindu who is doing fast in Navratra know everything what he can eat what he cannot.  How can a Navratra worship person purchase corn from store for his fast.  It is further stated that the ingredients in the namkeen are mentioned on the wrapper of the namkeen.  The whole story has been concocted by the complainant in connivance with his brother only to extort grab the huge amount from the OP.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.  Lastly, the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.   

3.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits.

4.             We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record by the parties as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that brother of the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar visited the shop of OP on 14.10.2018 and purchased grocery items and also purchased Shakti Namkeen Roasted Cornflakes which were placed in the corner/rack being  displayed for consumption during Navratras.  Further it is argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the brother of the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar handed over the above said navratra special items to the complainant. The complainant consumed it in the plate served to him and when he saw the wrapper, then he stunned to see that these are corn made meaning thereby it is a grain product, whereas as per Hindu Mythology, Custom and ritual, consumption of grain is strictly prohibited for people taking fast/varat.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that all these acts on the part of the OP amounts to gravest deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  As such, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that this complaint is not maintainable as no such articles were purchased by the complainant rather it was Manoj Kumar who purchased the articles.  The learned counsel for the OP has further argued that it was Manoj Kumar who was to file the complaint and not the complainant.  Lastly, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

7.             After going through the averments in the complaint, it is clear that Shri Rakesh Kumar Singla never purchased any articles from the shop of the OP and he is not a consumer of the OP.

8.             As Shri Rakesh Kumar Singla never visited the shop of the OP nor he purchased anything from the shop of the OP, so he is not a consumer qua the OP.  Shri Rakesh Kumar Singla filed his affidavit Ex.CW-A1 and deposed as per his complaint. He tendered Aadhaar market slip Ex.C-1 and in that slip the name of the customer is mentioned as Manoj Kumar. Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 are the cuttings of newspaper.  On behalf of the OP, Shri Jalaur Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.OP1 and deposed as per written version.  Shri Santosh Kumar has also filed an affidavit Ex.OP-2 and stated that Rakesh Kumar Singla is not a consumer as per averments.  In rebuttal evidence Shri Manoj Kumar tendered his affidavit Ex.C-10 and stated that on 14.10.2018 he purchased the articles from the OP  for his brother.

9.             From the above discussion, the basic document in the present case is Ex.C-1 receipt showing the purchase of grocery items from the OP.  Now, Shri Manoj Kumar cannot say that he purchased the items for Shri Rakesh Kumar complainant.  So, it is clear that a false and frivolous complaint has been lodged by the complainant and as stated above the complainant is not a consumer qua the OP and this complaint is not maintainable.

10.            In view of above, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

11.            A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

       

                                January 4, 2021.

 

             (Vinod Kumar Gulati)             (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)

                         Member                           President