New Complaint No.246 of 2023.
Date of Institution:27.10.2023.
Old Complaint No:328 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 31.07.2018.
Date of order:19.01.2024.
Satwinder Singh Son of Sukhwinder Singh, resident of Village Kalar P.O Gujjarpura, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143505.
…....Complainant.
VERSUS
Dinesh Kansra Son of Vinod Kansra, Proprietor of V.K. General Store, Inside Nehru Gate, Batala District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143505.
….Opposite party.
Consumer Complaint Under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Complainant: In person.
For the Opposite Party: Sh.Narinder Sharma, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Satwinder Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Dinesh Kansra (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the opposite party running a General Store inside Nehru Gate Batala and has good business and deals in general items including ladies items. It is pleaded that in the month of February 2018 complainant alongwith his wife went to the shop of the opposite party and purchased some items including Kanwin Night Suit worth Rs.1600/- and total bill amount was Rs.4305/-. The above said Night Suit is defective piece and complainant went to the shop of the opposite party and complains the same and asked to change the defective piece. It is further pleaded that the complainant demands Pakka Bill of the articles because the opposite party issue a Kacha Bill, hand written, but the opposite party refused to give a Pakka Bill. The opposite party also threatens the complainant and told "do What Ever you do, I will sell many duplicate articles in the market and no one stops me". The opposite party also openly insulted the complainant in the open market. It is further pleaded that the complainant also give Legal Notice to the opposite party dated 06.03.2018, but the opposite party did not even to bother to give reply to the complainant. On many occasions, the complainant approach the opposite party to resolve the matter, but all in vain. It is further pleaded that the facts and circumstances narrated in the complaint prima facie proves that there was a serious deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering proper service to the complainant and the Proprietor of V.K. General Store i.e. Dinesh Kansra acted negligently and carelessly in dealing with the complainant because the opposite party refused to give a Pakka Bill even to the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite party the complainant has suffered loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party to refund Rs.1600/- paid by the complainant as the cost price of Night Suit. Compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- on account of Mental Agony, harassment and emotional distress suffered by the complainant due to the negligent and unprofessional conduct of the opposite party may also be awarded to the complainant. The Litigation expenses, which this Hon'ble Commission deems just fit and proper for the filing and pursuing the present complaint against the opposite party may also be awarded to the complainant. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the complainant.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply, stating therein that there was no defect in the night suit. The complainant has purchased the same after checking it properly. The complainant never approached the answering opposite party for showing any defect. The bill was issued to the complainant at the time of purchase of goods. It is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service of the answering opposite party moreover the warranty of goods relates with company and the company is responsible to change the articles. The complainant never made any complaint to the company of the products nor he impleaded the company as party as such suit of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
On merits, the opposite party denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed affidavit of Satwinder Singh, (Complainant) alongwith other documents as Ex.CW-1/A to Ex.CW-1/D.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has filed affidavit of Dinesh Kansra, (Proprietor of V.K. General Store i.e. opposite party) alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
8. Complainant has appeared in person and has argued that he and his wife had purchased one night suit and other articles from opposite party in Feb.2018 for Rs.4305/- but night suit was defective and when he requested to replace the same, opposite party refused to so. It is further argued that he had demanded Pakka bill of the articles but the opposite party had issued only kacha bill. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that there was no defect in the night suit and the articles purchased by the complainant after having properly verified it. The bill attached with the complaint is false rather opposite party had issued a valid bill to the complainant. Moreover, in case of defect, only manufacturer of articles is liable and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for the opposite party and gone through the record.
11. To prove his case complainant has placed on file his affidavit, copy of kacha bill Ex.CW-1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.CW-1/B, copy of postal receipt Ex.CW-1/C and copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.CW-1/D.
12. It is admitted fact that opposite party is prop. of V.K. General Store, inside Nehru Gate, Batala. It is further admitted fact that complainant has purchased articles worth Rs.4305/- including one night suit worth Rs.1600/- from the opposite party. The only disputed issue before this Commission for adjudication is whether the failure to issue pakka bill and refusal to change defective night suit amounts to deficiency in service.
13. Perusal of kacha bill Ex.CW-1/A shows that complainant had purchased six items worth Rs.4305/- from the opposite party and the opposite party has taken plea that opposite party had issued a pakka bill but opposite party has failed to place on record the second copy of the said bill which shows that opposite party deliberately issued kacha bill to the complainant and thereafter refused to change the defective night suit which itself amounts to deficiency in service. Moreover, the plea of opposite party that manufacturer has not been made party has also no force as opposite party has not disclosed the name of manufacturer of alleged night suit. From the above discussion deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is fully proved.
14. Accordingly, preset complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1600/- to the complainant for having sold defective night suit alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization and also to pay Rs.3,000/- for mental tension, agony and cost of litigation for having issued kacha bill to the complainant. It is further mention that if the above referred amount of Rs.3,000/- is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order the said amount of Rs.3,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of the filing of the present complaint till realization.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Jan. 19, 2024 Member.
*YP*
