Punjab

Sangrur

CC/370/2016

Harjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

All Punjab Sale Promotion Scheme - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajinder Goyal

18 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                       Complaint No. 370

Instituted on:    02.05.2016

                                                                        Decided on:      18.10.2016

 

 

Harjinder Singh son of Hardev Singh R/O V&PO Ladda, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.             All Punjab Sale Promotion Scheme, Sangrur Road, Near Bye Pass, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur through its partners/Managers (i) Malkeet Singh son of Pohla Singh (ii) Amritpal Singh son of Prmukh Singh (iii) Rajbir Singh son of Natha Singh (iv) Satnam Singh s/o Roop Singh (now deceased through his LRs (Aharjit Kaur W/o Roop Singh (mother) (b) Roop Singh son of Gurdial Singh, all residents of Village Benra, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

2.     Malkeet Singh son of Pohla Singh, resident of Ditu Patti, Village Benra, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

3.     Amritpal Singh s/o Parmukh Singh, resident of village Benra, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

4.     Rajbir Singh s/o Natha Singh, resident of village Benra, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

5.     Satnam Singh son of Roop Singh (now deceased) through his LRs (a) Harjit Singh W/o Roop Singh (mother, (b) Roop Singh s/o Gurdial Singh (Father), both residents of Opp. Government High School, Village Benra, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

             ….Opposite parties

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY No.3       :            Shri R.S.Bhangu,Adv.

FOR OPP.PARTY No.5(a&b)     Shri Ritesh Jindal, Adv.

For Ops No.1,2 & 4             :    Exparte.      

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   K.C.Sharma, Member

                   Sarita Garg, Member

           

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Harjinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that  the Ops launched a sale promotion scheme under the name and style of All Punjab Sale Promotion Scheme under which the complainant had to deposit twelve instalments of Rs.1000/- per month  and every month a draw was to be held under which certain prizes were to be given and at the end of the scheme, the remaining members were to receive Rs.15,000/- each.  It is further averred that on the assurance of Satnam Singh the complainant also became member of the scheme and deposited Rs.1000/- on 13.11.2013 vide receipt number 59 dated 13.11.2013 and a card bearing consumer number 1547 was also issued to the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that after completion of 12 months in the month of November, 2014, the complainant requested the Ops to make the payment of Rs.15,000/- as promised, but the Ops failed to pay the same.   It is further stated that the complainant though filed a complaint number 446 dated 8.6.2015 which was withdrawn on 2.9.2015 and as such has filed the fresh complaint before this Forum seeking direction against the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity of the scheme i.e. 13.11.2014 till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Op number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the OP number 3 has no concern whatsoever with the alleged scheme nor the OP ever issued any receipt as alleged.  The OP has no concern with the said firm or its working. However, the other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 5(a) & (b), legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant does not fall under the CPA, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  On merits, it is stated that the son of the OP has no concern with the alleged firm as well as any alleged scheme. It is stated that the Op number 3 has no concern with the said firm or its working or any alleged scheme.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied. It is further stated that the present complaint has only been filed for harassing the OP.

 

4.             Record shows that OPs number 1,2 &4 have not  filed any reply as such, their defence was closed by order of the Forum.  Further, the Ops number 1,2 and 4 did not appear on 5.10.2016, as such, they were proceeded exparte.

 

5.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 copy of brochure, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11 copies of receipts, Ex.C-12 copy of order dated 2.9.2015, Ex.C-13 copy  of partnership deed, Ex.C-14 affidavit of the complainant and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 5 has produced Ex.OP5/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

7.             In the present case, the complainant has filed a complaint against the Ops on the ground that he became the member number 1547 on 13.11.2013 of the sale promotion scheme under the name and style of All Punjab Sale Promotion Scheme launched by the Ops.  It is further case of the complainant that the Ops were to held a draw under which certain prizes were to be given by the Ops and at the end of the scheme, the remaining members were to be paid Rs.15,000/- each including the complainant. But, the Ops failed to repay/refund the same despite his best efforts.  But, on the other hand, the stand of the OP number 3 is that he has no concern with the scheme whatsoever nor the complainant became any member under any scheme nor the OP number 3 ever issued any such receipt.    The same is the stand of the Op number 5 in their written reply.  Now, the question remains that the complainant has to stand on his own legs to establish his case.   The complainant has produced the copies of the receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11 showing the payment of Rs.1000/- per month, but it is not clear from these receipts who had issued the same to the complainant.  Further the complainant has produced Ex.C-13 the copy of partnership deed to establish his case, but we feel that the said partnership deed is also not helpful to the case of the complainant as the same seems to be under the name and style of M/s. All Electronics Sales Promotion Scheme, whereas the complainant has filed the complaint against All Punjab Sale Promotion Scheme, which has a similar, but different entity.  As such, we feel that in the present case, there is dispute between the parties even on the facts whether the complainant is a member of the Ops or not.  Accordingly, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is relegated to approach the Civil Court to get redressed his grievance, where the parties can produce elaborate evidence to establish the case, whereas the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are summary in nature, where the cases are decided in time bound period. 

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court, if he so desired.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.     

Pronounced.

 

                October 18, 2016.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                                            (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

 

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                 Member