Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/902/2013

Parveen Anand S/o.Tejpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arun Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Gurvinder Singh

02 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No.902 of 2013.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 16.12.2013 

                                                                                          Date of decision: 02.12.2016

 

Parveen Anand aged about 38 years son of Sh. Tejpal Singh Anand, resident of Village Badhi Majra, P.O. Pansara, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

…Complainant.

                                    Versus

Arun Sharma son of Shri Balram Sharma, resident of village and P.O. Pansara, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                        

                                                                                                        …Respondent.

 

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Gurvinder Singh Advocate, Advocate for complainant.

                         None for respondent.

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 65720/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

                        Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that the OP is running Chit Fund Scheme in his village Pansara, District Yamuna Nagar and the complainant has got 2 chit fund scheme for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant has been paying the installments regularly and OP has collected the same and disbursed to the persons who were members of this scheme. Previously, the complainant has been paying the installments of both the chit funds and the complainant had paid 10 installments i.e. Rs. 38300/- in scheme of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 14 installments i.e. Rs. 27,4,20/- in scheme of Rs. 50,000/-. In this way the complainant paid Rs. 65720/- in total. Thereafter, in the month of October 2012, the OP stopped receiving the installments of both the Chit Funds and said that he has closed the Chit Fund Scheme. The complainant demanded his amount of Rs. 65,720/- but the Op always prolonged the matter.  In the month of July, 2013, the OP has clearly refused to pay the same. After that, complainant moved an application to the S.P. Yamuna Nagar on dated 20.07.2013 but police has also not taken any step. A legal notice was also served but all in vain. Lastly, prayed that OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 65,720/- alongwith interest as well as compensation and litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed his written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is neither legally maintainable nor tenable in the eye of law; there exist no relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties; complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; no cause of action arose to the complainant; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been admitted that OP used to run Chit Fund Scheme and complainant had become a member by getting two schemes of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as per installment payment schedule which was in 20 installments in both the schemes. There were members of the said scheme and not customer, as alleged. It has been further mentioned that it is totally wrong that complainant had paid such amount in both schemes as alleged. In fact, in the beginning, the complainant had received the amount of both the schemes under false pretext that he was in dire need of money urgently and the OP had paid the said amount in both the schemes to the complainant under good and bonafide faith. The complainant had assured to make the payment of installments in time but after receiving money, the intention of the complainant turned malafide and stopped making payment of installments in both the schemes as per payment schedule. The complainant on the card of payment of installments provided by the OP forged the signature/ initial of OP and that is why he is alleging that he has paid 10 and 14 installments in both the schemes which he has never paid to the complainant. Lastly, it has been mentioned that due to non-payment of installments by the complainant, the total schedule of chit fund scheme disturbed and Op incurred heavy losses. So far as the complaint alleged to have been moved to the police is concerned, the same was found false and baseless on the enquiry. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of legal notice dated 11.10.2013 as Annexure C-1, Postal receipt as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of installment card as Annexure C-3 and C-4, Photo copy of pass book as Annexure C-5 and C-6 and closed his evidence.

4.                     On the other hand, OP failed to adduce any evidence and his evidence was closed by court order on 30.11.2016.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

6.                     After hearing the counsel for the complainant, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum as from the perusal of contents of the complaint, it is duly evident that complainant was member of Chit Fund Scheme and not hired the service of OP against any consideration. Hence, the complainant does not fall under the purview of consumer define in section 2(1)(d) of the consumer Protection Act which are reproduced here as under:

                                    (i)         buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid any partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

                        (ii)        [ hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [ but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

                        [ Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “ commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment]”            

7                      After going through the above definition as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court as per law, if so advised. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 02.12.2016.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                           DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER