Order by:
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 the complainant firm is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act and Vibhu Kashyap is one of the registered partner of the complainant firm. So, he is competent to file the present complaint on behalf of the complainant firm. Copy of Form A & C is enclosed herewith. Further alleges that the Opposite Party approached the Complainant for the supply of the electric lights and got the order at Moga amounting to Rs.36,522/-. The electric lights were to be supplied immediately only with the condition that advance payment was to be made to the Opposite Party by the Complainant. As per the commitment, the Complainant transferred Rs.16,530/- on 12.02.2019 and Rs.19,992/- on 15.2.2019 through RTGS from Central Bank of India, G.T.Road, Moga branch in the account of the Opposite Party of State Bank of India having IFSC Code skin0010437. This amount has been clearly shown in the statement of account which is issued by the Complainant bank. Thereafter, as per the promise and commitment, after receiving the full amount, the Opposite Party has not delivered the goods to the Complainant upto this data. Even thereafter, legal notice was also served upon the Opposite Party, but inspite of receiving the legal notice, the Opposite Party has not delivered the goods to the Complainant till date, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant made so many request to supply the goods for which the payment has already been remitted to them, but the Opposite Party has failed to supply the goods So there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To deliver the electric lights as per the order placed before them or to refund the amount of Rs. 36,522/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till its realization.
- And also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation and
- Any other relief which this Hon’ble District Forum may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence this complaint has been filed by the Complainant for the redressal of her grievances.
2. Upon notice, none has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, hence Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte by this District Commission.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the Complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
5. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant firm is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act and Vibhu Kashyap is one of the registered partner of the complainant firm and hence he is competent to file the present complaint on behalf of the complainant firm. Copy of Form A & C is placed on record as Ex.C5 and Ex.C6. Ld.counsel for the complainant further contended that Opposite Party approached the Complainant for the supply of the electric lights and got the order at Moga amounting to Rs.36,522/-. The electric lights were to be supplied immediately only with the condition that advance payment was to be made to the Opposite Party by the Complainant. As per the commitment, the Complainant transferred Rs.16,530/- on 12.02.2019 and Rs.19,992/- on 15.2.2019 through RTGS from Central Bank of India, G.T.Road, Moga branch in the account of the Opposite Party of State Bank of India having IFSC Code skin0010437. This amount has been clearly shown in the statement of account which is issued by the Complainant bank. Further after receiving the full amount, the Opposite Party has not delivered the goods to the Complainant upto this data. Even thereafter, legal notice was also served upon the Opposite Party, but inspite of receiving the legal notice, the Opposite Party has not delivered the goods to the Complainant till date, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Further contended that the complainant made so many request to supply the goods for which the payment has already been remitted to them, but the Opposite Party has failed to supply the goods and hence the deficiency is writ large on the part of the Opposite Party. To prove the aforesaid contention, ld.counsel for the complainant has placed on record the duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1, copy of bank statement showing the remittance of the payment to the Opposite Party Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, its postal receipt Ex.C4, copies of form ‘A’ and ‘C’ Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, copy of aadhar card Ex.C7, copy of authorisation letter Ex.C7. The aforesaid evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence on record as the Opposite Party did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. In this way, the Opposite Party has impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Party has no defence to offer or defend the complaint.
6. So, from the entire unrebutted and unchallenged evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that the Opposite Party has adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by not sending the goods to the complainant. On this count, the Complainant prayed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 36,522/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till its realization and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- 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. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant against the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 36,522/- (Rupees thirty six thousands five hundred twenty two only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 29.01.2020 till its actual realization. Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party 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.
8. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State 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 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 05.04.2022.
