Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/185/2023

GOBIND RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHANDIGARH TENT HOUSE - Opp.Party(s)

D.R. Kaith

14 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/185/2023
Date of Institution	:	12/4/2023
Date of Decision	:	14/8/2024

 

Gobind Ram son of Sh. Shiv Narayan, aged 46 years R/o 1015. Dadu Majra Colony, Sector-38W, Chandigarh

..Complainant

Versus

 

1. Chandigarh Tent House, Shop No.836, DMC, Sector-38W. Chandigarh through its proprietor Sh. Susil Bansal S/o Mangat Ram.

2. Sushil Bansal S/o Mangat Ram, proprietor of Chandigarh Tent House, Shop No.836, DMC, Sector-38W, Chandigarh.

Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
	:	Sh. Rahul Dev Singh, Advocate for OPs alongwith Sh. Sushil Bansal, Opposite party No.2 in person being proprietor of Opposite party No.1

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated that in first week of November, 2022 complainant contacted OPs for providing Tent, Catering, crockery, waiters, lighting etc. service to be used at the wedding of complainant's daughter to be held on 15.01.2023 at Community Centre, Sarangpur, UT, Chandigarh for which OPs agreed. In the marriage function, there were to be gathering of 500 people and OPs have committed the arrangement of 500 people, upon which on January 14, 2023 OPs send a Rate Quotation to complainant which included the 400 chairs. 17 round tables, entrance gate alongwith decoration, generator, Waiters, cooks and crockeries items. Total amount for providing these services was agreed to Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid by the complainant  on 14.01.2023 in cash for the said marriage function. On 15.01.2022 i.e. on the day of marriage function, there was no arrangement as agreed by the OPs. There were no sufficient sitting arrangement of almost 500 persons as there were only 100 chairs were arranged. OPs also not arranged the round tables in the numbering of 17 as agreed. There were only 5-7 round tables. The numbers of the waiters were only 10 alongwith cooks. The entrance gate and the sitting place of bride and bridegroom was also not decorated as shown by the OPs to complainant before the booking of said marriage function and for that the OPs had charged. During the marriage function, the light went out of order and there was no generator facilities as promised by the OPs and almost half an hour light disturbance also interrupted the marriage function of complainant. The waiters of the OP did not serve the guests properly . The complainant has made numerous calls to OPs in this regard during function, but the mobile phone of the OPs was switched off whole day and due to the said act of OPs complainant suffered a lot of mental tension, harassment. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties  in their reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that  the complainant  has concocted a false story in order to avoid paying the actual outstanding amount of Rs.2,20,000/-  due against the complainant. It is alleged that the bill Annexure C-1 has been forged by the complainant as he took away the bill book from the shop of the  OPs in their absence. It is averred that the bill book is signed so as to enable the son of the Opposite party who takes care of the business and sits in the shop in the absence of Opposite party issue bill by mentioning the items on the bill. It is averred that the complainant had taken the merchant copy of the bill No.1408 whereas the original blank bill is still with the bill book. It is averred that in fact  OPs had been given order of arrangement of 250 people, 250 chairs and 15 round tables waiters, cooks and crockery items for a total sum of
   Rs.2,00,000/- for marriage arrangement. But it is denied that complainant had approached the Ops only for marriage function but it was also for providing the service for the ladies sangeet to be held on 13.1.2023 at his residence. In fact complainant initially approached the Ops for providing services only for ladies sangeet to be held on 13.1.2023 and after being satisfied with the services being provided on the said function, complainant urged the Ops to provide services for the said marriage ceremony too. The charges for both the functions were separate. Rs. 50,000/- were the charges for ladies sangeet and Rs. 2,00,000/- were charges for providing services for marriage function of the daughter of the complainant to be held in the community center Sarangpur, U.T., Chandigarh.  Denying any deficiency on their part all other allegations made in the complaint have been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that the services of OPs for arranging of wedding of his daughter on 15.1.2023 at community centre, Sarangpur, U.T., Chandigarh  were not  of the standards which was promised before coming into agreement and receiving the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by OPs. The allegations of the complainant is that there were not sufficient sitting arrangement of almost 500 person  as only 100 chairs were   arranged and even 17 round tables were promised to be arranged but only 5 round  tables were arranged.  The number of waiters  and cooks were also less. Even the entry gate  and sitting place of bride and  bridegroom was not decorated as promised by the OPs to the complainant before  booking of the alleged marriage function for which the OPs have charged hefty amount from the complainant. It  has further been alleged that generator facility was also not upto the mark and there was electricity light disturbance also which interrupted the marriage function of the daughter of the complainant.
7. On the other hand the  Opposite party  stated that the actual outstanding amount of Rs.2,20,000/-  due against the complainant and  it is alleged that the bill Annexure C-1 has been forged by the complainant as he took away the bill book from the shop of the  OPs in their absence. Pertinently the complainant had taken the merchant copy of the bill No.1408 whereas the original blank bill is still with the bill book.
8. After going through the allegations made by the complainant as well as the defence taken by the OPs, it transpires from the written version of the OPs that   allegations of forgery and fraud has been levelled against the complainant as according to  Opposite Parties, the complainant has forged the bill Annexure C-1 by fraudulently taking the bill book from their office  whereas the evidence on record tendered by the complainant is also not sufficient to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Having considered the matter from different angles and having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the complainant, we are of the view that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as the same is required detailed trial and voluminous evidence in the shape of examination and cross examination of the witnesses and the same is not possible under summary proceedings before this Commission.
9. The law is well settled that when there are allegations of fraud, forgery etc., the Consumer Commission  has got no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate it and the matter is to be decided by the Civil Court.  Reliance is placed on Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II(2012) CPJ 151 (NC), wherein it has been held that :-

“Complaints which are based on allegations of fraud, forgery, etc. and trial of which would required voluminous evidence and consideration are not to be entertained by this Commission. – This complaint is an attempt to misuse jurisdiction of this Commission only with a view to save on Court fee payable in a suit before Civil Court – Complaint not maintainable.”

10.    In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the firm opinion that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the complaint.  Therefore, complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of her grievance. 
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
12.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
14/8/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member