Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/513

Gamdoor singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhari Bhupinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Karam Singh Adv.

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 513 of 18.07.2016

Date of Decision            :   28.02.2017

 

Gamdoor Singh aged about 72 years, son of Arjan Singh son of Thula Singh resident of H.No.2897, Street No.5, Multania Road, Bathinda.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.Bhai Bhupinder Singh authorized person and organizer of Nasha Chhadau Kendar, village Alamgir, District Ludhiana having mobile No.99144-13100.

2.Bhai Gagandeep Singh, authorized person and organizer of Nasha Chhadau Kendar, village Alamgir, District Ludhiana having mobile No.85912-71313.

 

 

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :        Sh.Karam Singh, Advocate     

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant a permanent resident of Multania Road, Bathinda, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against Ops by claiming that his son Prabhjot Singh used to remain under mental tension and suffering due to mental disease. Said Prabhjot Singh used to run away from the house and that is why, he was admitted for treatment in mental hospital at Sri Amritsar Sahib on 20.10.2013. It is claimed that said Prabhjot Singh remained under treatment as indoor patient upto 26.5.2016, but his disease could not be cured. During the above said period, the complainant came to know from one Sukhdev Singh Joganand that a Nasha Chhadau Kender exists in village Alamgarh, District Ludhiana, where the children are treated and even taught Gurubani. On 26.5.2015, the complainant after getting Prabhjot Singh discharged from the Mental Hospital, Sri Amritsar Sahib along with Baba Sukhdev Singh Joganand got him admitted in Nasha Chhadau Kender village Alamgir, District Ludhiana, which is organized by Ops. At the time of admission of Prabhjot Singh, OP2 was present and he called upon the complainant to deposit Rs.10,000/- for conduct of mental test of the child. As per information supplied by OP2, if after such test, it was found that child likely to be cured, only then he will be cured, otherwise, he will be discharged. On 28.5.2015, the complainant left his son Prabhjot Singh with Ops after paying Rs.10,000/- to them, but no receipt of this amount was issued. After few days, Ops disclosed the complainant that they have got knowledge from the report of child that his disease can be cured, but it will take a period of one year for treatment. Ops demanded Rs.6000/- per month for keeping the child with them. Complainant used to pay Rs.6000/- per month to the Ops from Bathinda by remitting the amount from his account maintained with Union Bank, NFL Branch, Bathinda. Ops arranged the meetings of the complainant with his son Prabhjot Singh in the tent, but without allowing him to his room. On these meetings of the complainant with his son Prabhjot Singh, a person always used to remain with the child, so that he may not disclose anything about the acts of Ops. On 17.3.2016, when the complainant went to said Kender of Ops for giving clothes etc, to his son, then one Bikkar Singh, official of Ops disclosed to the complainant that the disease of Prabhjot Singh has now been cured and he advised the complainant to take Prabhjot Singh back to home. So, complainant brought Prabhjot Singh back to Bathinda. However, the complainant was shocked and surprised to see that there was no progress in the condition of the child Prabhjot Singh. Rather, Ops sent back Prabhjot Singh in same condition, in which, he was earlier. Prabhjot Singh disclosed the complainant that Ops used to give him beating along with the other children admitted in the Kender. On one occasion, Op1 inflicted cudgel on the person of Prabhjot Singh resulting in fracture of joint in angle. Due to mental condition of Prabhjot Singh, again he has run away from his house. In case, Prabhjot Singh again is not traced, then Ops will be responsible for his loss. Complainant claims himself to be consumer of Ops. Act of ill treatment of Prabhjot Singh and charging of Rs.70,000/- alleged to be unfair trade practice. Refund of amount of Rs.70,000/- along with compensation of Rs.2 lac and interest @18% per annum claimed. Litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- more claimed.

2.                Ops are ex-parte in this case.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and thereafter, counsel for the complainant closed the ex-parte evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments of counsel for complainant addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely.

5.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that amount of Rs.60,000/- has been paid by the complainant to Ops through receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C14, but receipt  qua deposit of amount of Rs.10,000/- on 28.5.2015 not issued by Ops. It is also contended by counsel for the complainant that mental condition of Prabhjot Singh has not improved despite admission in the drug addiction centre of Ops during period from 28.5.2015 to 17.3.2016 and as such, false promise virtually was made by Ops for curing Prabhjot Singh. These submissions advanced by counsel for complainant though looks ex-facie  correct, but in fact, they are not as such because proof regarding the mental torture of Prabhjot Singh not produced because no medical report tendered in evidence in that respect. Even if the complaint with S.S.P. Pb.Chandigarh Ex.C3 may have been lodged, but despite that action      is contended to be not taken. If action by the police has not been taken, then the said matter is not germane to the proceedings of this complaint.

6.                Complainant himself has produced on record visiting card Ex.C4 of  OPs to establish that OP concern is drug de-addiction College/School, where training of Kirtan and explanation of Gurubani is provided. Nowhere in Ex.C4, it is mentioned that centre of Ops is a drug de-addiction centre. Mention of words Nasha Mukti Vidhalaya in Ex.C4 itself enough to establish that centre of Ops is like a  college/school for teaching in Drug de-addiction matters. In the school or college, teaching is given or drug de-addiction discourses are delivered. So, contents of Ex.C4 itself establishes that Ops rendered services of teaching against addiction or qua the ways and means as   to how to get rid of disease of addiction. In view of contents of Ex.C4 and in view of the non production of any brochure of Ops, it has to be held that the complainant failed to establish that amount of Rs.60,000/- was deposited by the complainant with Ops for providing treatment with respect to the drug deaddiction of Prabhjot Singh. Had that been done so, then the complainant by keeping in view the contents of Ex.C4 would have insisted Ops to issue the brochure or the terms and conditions on which the payment accepted. The terms and conditions of deposit of the amount not disclosed and as such, in view of mention of Ops centre as a college/school pertaining to drug deaddiction, it has to be held that the complainant virtually deposited the amount knowing well that Ops just to give teaching against drug deaddiction or the said institute to give training in kirtan or explanation of Gurubani. As and when an institution provides services for preaching or teaching, then the  same does not give guarantee regarding treatment of drug deaddiction. So, by keeping     in view the contents of Ex.C4 as discussed above, it has to be held that actually Ops charged the amount in question without guarantee of due cure qua drug deaddiction of Prabhjot Singh. Rather, the said amount charged for giving teaching to Prabhjot Singh against drug deaddiction or for teaching him kirtan or explanation of Gurubani. Being so, complainant is not consumer of Ops and deficiency in service on the part of Ops is not established at all.

7.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed exparte without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                              (G.K. Dhir)

                                              Member                                                  President

Announced in Open Forum                                                          Dated:28.02.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.