Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/343/2016

Akashdeep Singh Bal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Absolute Style - Opp.Party(s)

Arjun Kundra

16 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/343/2016
Date of Institution	:	16/05/2016
Date of Decision	:	16/03/2018

 

 

Akashdeep Singh Bal s/o Sh. G.S. Bal r/o D 908-909, Dashmesh Nagar, Nada Road, Nayagaon, Distt SAS Nagar, Punjab 160103.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Absolute Style through its Owner Mr. Sumesh Pabreja s/o Mr. Umesh Pabreja, r/o House No.254-255, Pocket-8, First Floor, Sector 24, Rohini, New Delhi 110085.

2.     Mrs.Mamta Pabreja w/o Mr.Umesh Pabreja, r/o House No.254-255, Pocket-8, First Floor, Sector-24, Rohini, New Delhi-110085.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Arjun Kundra, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Arif Qureshi, Counsel for OPs

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of the consumer complaint is, on order being placed by the complainant to purchase 4 sunshades/goggles for Rs.2,500/- each on 20.4.2016 from OP-1 through Whatsapp message, consideration of the said articles was paid through bank account. Total amount deposited was Rs.10,000/-, however, on receipt of the articles, these were found not of the make of which the order was placed. The packet was also damaged. Information was given on 22.4.2016 itself and it was told that due to the mix of the product the problem has cropped up.  It was undertaken to replace the same. Thereafter it was found that in fact business belongs to OP-2. The articles were changed but the same problem existed. The matter was brought to their notice, but, no action was taken. Notice was also issued. Hence, the present consumer complaint for the refund of the amount of Rs.5,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.22,000/-.
2.         OPs had furnished their reply raising various pleas on merits that this Consumer Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as the articles were delivered at Delhi and the parties are also not residents within the territorial jurisdiction of Consumer Forum at Chandigarh.  It is also their case, the matter was compromised, therefore, the consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended. 
3.         The parties led evidence by way of affidavits.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
5.         The first attack of the learned counsel for the OPs is that the parties are not residents within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum i.e. the complainant is resident of SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab while the OPs are residents of Rohini, New Delhi.  No material was brought on record to show if any transaction was done and cause of action partly has arisen within the local limits of this Forum.  We do submit to this contention as there is no material brought on record to confer the territorial jurisdiction on this Forum with regard to the present consumer dispute.
6.         The second attack of learned counsel for the OPs is, with regard to the same matter, a criminal complaint for the commission of offence under Section 420 IPC was preferred by the complainant before the concerned police Station in which a compromise was struck and an amount of Rs.3,000/- was paid to the complainant and on this he had withdrawn that report.  We shall have a glance at Annexure C-10 at page 13 vide which the statement of the complainant, Sh. Akashdeep Singh Bal, Advocate is placed on record alongwith its English version.  Its perusal shows, complainant is an advocate by profession and he had filed a complaint and received an amount of Rs.3,000/- and he did not want to take any action upon his complaint.  There is also endorsement dated 17.5.2016 of SHO, P.S. Nayagaon, to the effect that during the enquiry of aforesaid complaint, Mr. Akashdeep Singh Bal, complainant did not want to take any action on his above said complaint.  During the course of arguments, these facts are not disputed before us.  The amount of Rs.3,000/- i.e. for defect in the goggles already stood received by the complainant on 17.5.2016 while the present consumer complaint was instituted before this Forum on 16.5.2016.  This leads to the conclusion that after launching of the present consumer complaint, the matter was compromised on 17.5.2016. Same is the matter which was compromised. Now time and again further litigation is not permissible under law as it would lead to the misuse of the system and matter was settled once for all on receipt of Rs.3,000/-.  We are of the considered opinion that in view of this record, no cause of action survives in favour of the complainant to maintain the present consumer complaint for award of compensation and cause of action, if any, had been rendered infructuous. 
7.         In the light of the abovesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint fails. The same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/03/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President