HARSH RAHEJA. filed a consumer case on 04 Oct 2022 against ASHOK SINGLA,OWNER OF SINGLA. in the Panchkula Consumer Court. The case no is CC/385/2021 and the judgment uploaded on 04 Nov 2022.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA
Consumer Complaint No | : | 385 of 2021 |
Date of Institution | : | 15.09.2021 |
Date of Decision | : | 04.10.2022 |
Harsh Raheja son of Rakesh Kumar, resident of House No.1118, GBP Rosewood Society, Derabassi, Punjab.
….Complainant
Versus
Ashok Singla Owner of Singla Marriage Bureau, D-52, DSS188, Sector-21, Panchkula-134112 ….Opposite Party
COMPLAINT UNDER
Before: Sh.Satpal, President.
Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini,Member
Dr.Sushma Garg, Member
For the Parties: Sh.Anshul Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
OP already struck off vide order dated 03.01.2022.
ORDER
(Dr.Pawan Kumar, Member)
1. The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant accompanied by his mother, visited the OP, namely, Ashok Singla, who is allegedly running a marriage bureau, for availing the matrimonial related services. It is alleged that the OP assured the complainant that he would continue to provide the matrimonial related services by way of showing the profiles of a suitable match/girl for him on daily-basis and believing upon his version, a sum of Rs.3,100/- was paid to him through Paytm on 14.08.2021 and another sum of Rs.8,000/- was paid in cash to OP. It is alleged that the OP after showing profiles of some girl stopped the showing of profiles of the girls and thus, the complainant had tried to contact him on his mobile no.9878904402 & 9814558389 but he did not pick up the calls, it is further alleged whatsapp messages on his mobile no.9878904402 were delivered on 21.08.2021 and thereafter the efforts were to contact him on 23.08.2021. It is alleged that the legal notice was also sent on 27.08.2021 but the OP neither gave any reply nor refunded the sum of Rs.11,000/- as paid by him. Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel/ Advocate to contest the present complaint; but he did not file the written statement despite availing several opportunities including the last opportunity. Therefore, the defence of OP was struck off by this Commission, vide its order dated 03.01.2022.
3. To prove the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-9 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file, minutely and carefully.
5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint has invited our attention towards Annexure C-1 to C-9 in support of his contention and prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.
6. On the other hand, the OP has failed to file the written statement/reply, despite taking the sufficient time and resultantly, its defence was struck off vide our order dated 03.01.2022 and thus, there is no rebuttal to the contentions of the complainant
7. Evidently, Annexure C-1 which is alleged the visiting card of OP bears on it the name as Ashok Singla with Mobile Nos. 9878904402, 9814558939. Apart from the mobile number of OP, email address is also mentioned on the allegedly visiting card(Annexure C-1). It is further evident that a sum of Rs.2100/-+1000 were paid through Paytm Wallet of Meenakshi Singla having mobile no.8968594560 on 14.08.2021. As per Annexure C-3, the profile or particulars of some Preeti Suneja having Date of Birth 30.11.1991 has been alleged to be shared by the OP with complainant. However, no profile details are available on record. Further, whatsapp chat in the shape of Annexure C-4 on the mobile no.9878904402, which is mentioned on the allegedly visiting card(Annexure C-1), has been made. Review of Gaurav Gupta and Sushil Kumar about the poor service of the OP have been made available in the shape of Annexure C-6 and Annexure C-6(colly). As there is no rebuttal to the contentions and assertions of the complainant, we have no option except to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of OP.
8. As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-
9. The OP shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced on: 04.10.2022
Dr.Sushma Garg Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini Satpal
Member Member President
Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.
Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini
Member
p.s.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.