Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that that he is running business of sale of electric goods at Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga. The Complainant alleges that on 11.09.2017 he purchased 70 immersion water heaters 2000 Watts @ Rs.178.90 paisa for Rs.12,523/- as well as GST amount of Rs.3506.44 paisa total amounting to Rs.16,029.44 paisa from Bir Electric Company, Saddar Bazar, New Delhi vide invoice No. 225 dated 11.09.2017 and the same was booked with Opposite Party No.1 at Lahori Gate Delhi vide GR No.DLI 0053941 dated 11.09.2017 to be delivered at Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga through Opposite Party No.3. Further alleges that till today, the Complainant has not received the goods from the Opposite Parties inspite of repeated requests, demands and personal visits. Due to the illegal acts of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant suffered great loss, mental tension and agony and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To direct the Opposite Parties to pay the amount of Rs.16,029.44 paisa alongwith interest alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant and costs of the complaint.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable; that this District Consumer Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. As per the version of the Complainant, the goods were booked from Lahori Gate, Delhi to Nihal Singh Wala through Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier Private Limited, Patel Chowk, Jalandhar and that the Complainant has not come to this District Consumer Commission with clean hands. On merits, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 almost denied all the averments made by the Complainant and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Notice was sent to Opposite Party No.3, but as per the office report dated 18.05.2018, Opposite Party No.3 has refused to accept the notice, hence, Opposite Party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.07.2018.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the Complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ashok Puri Ex.Ops1,2/1 alongwith copy of resolution Ex.Ops1,2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and also perused the written submissions produced by the Complainant and gone through the evidence on record.
7. During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply respectively. It is not denied that on 11.09.2017 the Complainant purchased 70 immersion water heaters 2000 Watts @ Rs.178.90 paisa for Rs.12,523/- as well as GST amount of Rs.3506.44 paisa total amounting to Rs.16,029.44 paisa from Bir Electric Company, Saddar Bazar, New Delhi vide invoice No. 225 dated 11.09.2017 and the same was booked with Opposite Party No.1 at Lahori Gate Delhi vide GR No.DLI 0053941 dated 11.09.2017 to be delivered at Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga through Opposite Party No.3. Further alleges that till today, the Complainant has not received the goods from the Opposite Parties inspite of repeated requests, demands and personal visits. To prove his case, the Complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 11.09.2017 amounting to Rs.16,209.44 paisa, copy of GR of DPGC Ex.C3, copy of aadhar card Ex.C4 and C5. On the other hand, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has not specifically denied the aforesaid averments made in the complaint and hence, the aforesaid evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence on record and rather, the Opposite Parties indirectly admitted the case of the Complainant by mentioning against each and every para of the complaint as either ‘the para of the complaint is matter of record or ‘ the complaint is wrong and denied, and filed the abusive reply and no specific plea regarding the denial of the complaint is raised. Hence, we are of the view that the Opposite Parties have intentionally and knowingly withheld the goods of the Complainant without any reasonable cause and for this, the Complainant must be compensated due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of all the Opposite Parties jointly and severally. Further as argued above by the ld.counsel for the complainant that the Complainant has been harassed badly all the time without any reasonable cause and requested to make the claim amount of Rs.Rs.16,029.44 paisa alongwith interest alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant and costs of the complaint. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. It is admitted that complainant was compelled to knock the door of this Commission and the Opposite Parties did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant and had it was redressed at appropriate time, certainly this litigation could have been avoided .Admittedly, the term “compensation” has not been defined in the Consumer Protection Act, however, since this Act is based on principle of equity, good concise and natural justice hence this Commission is empowered to provide compensation after assessing the facts & sufferings of each case. As the complainant , has suffered a lot of mental as well as physical agony due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, as such the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.
8. In views of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant against all the Opposite Parties and all the Opposite Parties are jointly or severally directed to make the claim amount of Rs. 16,029.44 paisa alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the instant complaint i.e. 30.04.2018 till its actual realization. All the Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
9. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021. Moreover, the President of this Commission is doing additional duties at District Consumer Commission, Faridkot and furthermore due to non-sitting of this District Commission virtually for a long period due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:09.09.2021.
(Mohinder Singh Brar) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member President
