Haryana

Kurukshetra

293/2018

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Char Chinar - Opp.Party(s)

O.P.Paruthi

11 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 293 of 2018.

Date of instt. 20.12.2018. 

                                                                         Date of Decision: 11.07.2019.

 

1. Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Munshi Ram,
2. Hari Singh s/o Tulsi Ram, both residents of Amin Road, Kurukshetra.   

                                                                ……….Complainants.    

                        Versus

 

1. Chaar Chinar Handloom Emporium Golf Course Naldera, Shimla, H.P. through its Proprietor/ partner.
2. Blue Dart Courier Service, Coding and Analytics Lab, Jyoti Nagar, Kurukshetra through its owner/ proprietor/ partner.  

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Sh. O.P. Paruthi, Advocate for complainants. 

 Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

 Opposite party no.1 exparte.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Kuldeep Singh etc. against Chaar Chinar Handloom and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainants had purchased some items of clothes of woolen for personal use which is fully mentioned on the bill No.1658 dated 10.8.2013 from opposite party no.1 for Rs.21,600/- and the complainant had paid Rs.5600/- in advance on 10.8.2013 to op no.1 and balance payment was made at the time of delivery of the clothes i.e. blankets etc. at Kurukshetra. The op no.1 had sent the clothes through courier i.e. op no.2 to the complainants and at the time of delivery of the said goods, the complainants paid the balance amount of Rs.16,000/- to op no.2. It is further averred that at the time of sale of the said goods, op no.1 assured and took signatures on a contract which is in possession of op no.1 that complainants after five years i.e. on 10.8.2018 will get the same new items of clothes after paying 25% of costs of the said value or will get the amount of Rs.21,600/- after deducting 25% amount as per his choice. The complainants visited the shop of op no.1 at Shimla on 27.10.2018 as per the condition of the contract, but op no.1 did not hear the complainants and did not refund the amount of Rs.21,600/- after deducting 25% of the said amount and op no.1 finally refused to refund the above said amount to the complainants and has violated the terms and conditions of the contract. There is great deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of op no.1 and the complainants have suffered monetary loss. That complainants served a legal notice upon op no.1 on 14.11.2018 but the same was returned with a report of refusal. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Opposite party no.1 did not appear despite notice sent through registered post and was proceeded against exparte.

4.             Op no.2 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections that complainant is not the consumer. The complainant did not obtain any services of answering op at any point of time. The complaint is not maintainable qua answering op as in the entire complaint, there is no averment regarding any deficiency in service and negligence on the part of answering op. The complainants failed to disclose the shipment number of the consignment. It is further submitted that all the allegations/ grievances are against op no.1 and there is no complaint/ allegation regarding the non delivery of the product to the complainant, therefore, complaint qua op no.2 is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that complaint is hopelessly time barred as product in question as purchased on 10.8.2013 and same was admittedly delivered to the complaint and complaint has been filed after lapse of more than five years from the delivery of the said product. On merits, all the contents of the complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.2 did not produce any document.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             The complainants in order to prove their case have furnished affidavit of complainant Hari Singh as Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainants have also placed on file copy of retail invoice/ bill dated 10.8.2013 Ex.C1 issued by op no.1 from which it is evident that complainants purchased items of clothes of woolen as mentioned in the bill for a sum of Rs.21,600/- and at that time Kuldip complainant paid an amount of Rs.5600/- in advance. Then complainant Hari Singh made payment of Rs.8000/- on 22.8.2013 as is evident from bill Ex.C2  and then they received the said items from op no.1 at Kurukshetra through courier service of op no.2 and at that time they made payment of remaining amount of Rs.8000/- to op no.2 on behalf of op no.1. The complainants have also placed on file copy of courier receipt in this regard Ex.C3. The complainants have also placed on file copy of legal notice sent to op no.1 as Ex.C5. Further, the complainants have also placed on record copy of refund card issued by op no.1 as Ex.C6 in which it is clearly mentioned that “You can get the same new items after paying 25% after 5 years”. The pleadings and evidence led by complainants goes as unchallenged and unrebutted as op no.1 has failed to appear before this Forum rather opted to be proceeded against exparte and the op no.2 has led no evidence. The op no.1 is liable to make refund of the amount of 75% of the amount of Rs.21,600/- to the complainants and non refund of the same clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of op no.1. However, no liability of op no.2 is made out as op no.2 has simply delivered the courier to the complainants.

8.             In view of the above, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 and direct the op no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.16,200/- i.e. 75% of the amount of Rs.21,600/- to the complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. We further direct the op no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainants. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 11.07.2019.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.