DISTRICT CONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No.312 of 2.11.2007 Decided on : 25.1.2008 <br /> <br /> Thana Singh S/o Jarnail Singh, R/o Village Jhumba, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> China, Manoj of China Combine Spare Parts Shop, Anaj Mandi, Haji Rattan, Bathinda.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. G.S Brar, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Bikramjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> <br /> 1. Combine (Standard) is being used by the complainant for the purpose of harvesting the crops for the last about five years. Opposite party is running the shop of Combine spare parts at Grain Market, Bathinda. Spare parts of the value of Rs.14,000/- for the Combine were purchased by him on 13.4.2007 in the presence of Bhola Singh S/o Bikkar Singh, R/o village Jhumba. Payment of this amount was made in cash. Despite this, bill of Rs. 5,055/- was given on a simple paper. Opposite party was asked to issue regular bill of Rs. 14,000/-. He (complainant) was told that regular bill would be issued subsequently. Thereafter, he is visiting the opposite party for getting the bill, but it refused to issue it a week before the filing of this complaint. Act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to issue regular bill of Rs. 14,000/- for the spare parts of Combine purchased by him; pay Rs. 80,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite party filed reply taking legal objections that complainant is not consumer; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainant has got no locus-standi and cause of action to file it; complainant has not come with clean hands as he has concealed material facts from this Forum and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it denies that complainant is doing the work of harvesting with combine or that he had purchased spare parts worth Rs. 14,000/- on 13.4.2007 and bill on plain paper for Rs. 5,055/- was issued. Inter-alia, its plea is that complainant had approached it for quotations of the spare parts which were provided to him on plain paper. Thereafter, he never visited it for the purchase of goods. He is misusing the plain paper regarding quotations. It is selling the spare parts against bills. Had the complainant purchased any spare part from it, it would have definitely issued bill in his favour. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 3. In support of allegations and averments in the complaint, Thana Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.3), affidavit (Ex.C.4) of Bhola Singh & Kacha bill (Ex.C.2).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite party, reliance has been placed on<br /> affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.4) of S/Sh. China Kumar & Manoj Kumar, its Partners & affidavits (Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.3) of S/Sh. Sarjiwan Singh & Bhola Ram respectively.<br /> 5. Mr. Brar, learned counsel for the complainant argued that spare parts of combine worth Rs.14,000/- were purchased by the complainant on 13.4.2007. Amount was paid in cash. Bill for Rs. 14,000/- was not given. Bill (Ex.C.2) of Rs. 5,055/- was given on un-printed paper under signatures in the presence of Bhola Singh S/o Bikkar Singh, R/o village Jhumba. Despite repeated visits, opposite party has failed to issue bill of Rs. 14,000/-. <br /> 6. Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that complainant had visited the opposite party for getting quotations which were supplied on plain paper. He did not purchase spare parts of the combine. This fact is evident from the affidavits Ex.R.3 and Ex.R.4. Since, complainant did not buy goods from the opposite party for consideration, he is not consumer. <br /> 7. We have considered respective arguments. Material question for determination is as to whether complainant purchased spare parts of Combine worth Rs. 14,000/- from the opposite party. In order to prove it, complainant has proved his affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.3 as well as the affidavit Ex.C.4 of Sh. Bhola Singh, resident of village Jhumba. In the affidavit Ex.C.4, Sh. Bhola Singh states that complainant had purchased spare parts of Rs. 14,000/- from the opposite party on 13.4.2007 in his presence and amount of Rs. 14,000/- was paid in cash, but bill Ex. C.2 of Rs. 5,055/- was given on un-printed paper. Complainant has not given the details of the spare parts of Rs. 14,000/- purchased by him. List of the total items allegedly purchased for Rs.14,000/- has not been placed and proved on record. It is not the stance of the complainant that the rate of the items mentioned in Ex.C.2 has been charged in excess and less rate has been shown in it. Price of each item shown in Ex.C.2<br /> has been recorded. In these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that spare parts/goods worth Rs. 14,000/- were purchased and payment in cash of Rs. 14,000/- was made. To the contrary, purchase of items/spare parts worth Rs. 5,055/- is established from the evidence on the record. Hence, complainant becomes consumer qua the opposite party. Plea of the opposite party that no spare part was purchased by the complainant and that only quotation of spare parts requested by him was supplied on plain paper, is not tenable. If quotations are demanded by a person, they are issued on the quotation pad. There are no remarks in Ex.C.2 that it is a quotation regarding the spare parts. A perusal of Ex.C.2 reveals that items and their prices have been tick marked. Such like marking is done if the goods/spare parts are sold and thereafter items sold are counted by way of tick marking and their price is checked by way of tick marking. Had the complainant come to the opposite party merely for getting the quotation of spare parts and the same was supplied, complainant would have been thankful to the opposite party. He could have no grudge against it. He could not have any occasion to approach the opposite party time and again for getting the bill and to move this Forum by way of filing this complaint. There is not an iota of evidence on the record that complainant or Bhola Singh have enmity or any other animus against the opposite party for preferring this complaint against it. So far as the affidavits of S/Sh. China Kumar and Manoj Kumar which are Ex. R.1 & Ex.R.4 are concerned, they are of interested persons as they are Partners in China Spare Parts Shop. Similarly, no weight can be attached to the affidavits (EX.R.2 & Ex.R.3) because version of Sh. Sarjiwan Singh and Bhola Ram in them appears to us an afterthought. They have not been named in the reply of the complaint. Apart from this, Surjiwan Singh is close friend of the Partners of the opposite party and Bhola Ram is working at their shop. It being so, they being interested persons, can always be at their back and call. Opposite party cannot wriggle out of the situation by saying that whenever goods/spare parts are sold, bills are issued. Question is as to whether bill in this case for sale of goods/spare parts worth Rs. 5,055/- was issued. The reply to our minds is in the negative. Generally, it is done by some of the Shopkeepers in order to avoid Value Added Tax. Accordingly, we conclude that it is proved that complainant purchased spare parts worth Rs. 5,055/- from the opposite party and regular bill for purchase on 13.4.2007 has not been issued. In this manner, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party is established to this extent.<br /> 8. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to the opposite party to issue bill of Rs.5,055/- to the complainant regarding purchase of the goods/spare parts mentioned in Ex.C.2 on 13.4.2007.<br /> 9. Since, bill was not issued, complainant has to visit the opposite party time and again. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused him mental agony and physical pain for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 500/-. <br /> 10. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 11. In the result, complaint against the opposite party is partly allowed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite party is directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Issue regular bill of Rs. 5,055/- to the complainant regarding the items/spare parts purchased by him on 13.4.2007 shown in Ex.C.2.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs. 500/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A.<br /> 12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. <br /> File be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 25.01.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br />