Haryana

Panchkula

CC/108R/2014

HSIDC - Complainant(s)

Versus

ENGINEERS DEVLOPMENT COUNCIL. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJVIR SINGH

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.             

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	108 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	26.06.2014
Date of Decision	:	13.07.2016

                                                                                          

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, C-13 and 14, Sector 6, Panchkula through its Deputy General Manager.

 

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

Engineers Development Council, Plot No.66 and 94, Triveni Apartment, Jhilmil Colony, New Delhi through its Manager/Executive/representative.

 

                                                                         ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.B.S.Negi, Adv., for the complainant. 

None for the Op.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. Initially, the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum which was allowed. The OP filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission as first appeal No.105 of 2015 which was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2015 and the order passed by this Forum was set aside. The case was remanded to this Forum with the direction to decide the complaint again.
2. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that the complainant is a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and its shareholding is held by the State of Haryana. The complainant is engaged in industrial and infrastructure development within the State of Haryana and is nodal agency of the state. The OP vide its communication/letter dated 16.12.2012 addressed to Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh stating itself to be an institution established by the Planning Commission offered its serving in Central, State and Local Governments in its specialized program “South East Asian Models of Infrastructure Development”. The Op also claimed in the said letter that it was equipped with and has specialized experience in organizing and conducting such like programs which included services of transportation, boarding and lodging. The Op has also mentioned in the letter that it would organize and conduct the program from 16-23 May, 2013 at Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand and expenses for the service was fixed at Rs.1,96,000/- per participant. The complainant vide its letter dated 17.04.2013 conveyed its acceptance to the proposal whereby the Op offered its services. In the letter, the complainant also gave particulars of its four officers who were to participate in the program. The complainant paid Rs.7,84,000/- to the OP through RTGS at Panchkula. The complainant also had to put in lot of energy and resources so as to get the necessary administrative and financial sanction for its delegates. But the Op without seeking any concurrence of the complainant changed the schedule for the program from 16-23 May 2013 to 19-26 May, 2013. The complainant immediately vide its letter dated 13.05.2013 conveyed the Op that on account of changed schedule, it was not possible for its delegates to avail the services and requested to refund the entire amount of Rs.7,84,000/-. The complainant requested many times through e-mails & letters the Op and Mr.Akash Chaudhary time and again gave assurance that refund would be made soon but the Op did not refund the amount. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the authorized representative for the Op appeared and the case was fixed for filing written statement for 02.09.2014. The Op has filed an application u/s 151 CPC on 02.09.2014 stating that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the office of OP is situated in Delhi, payment was also received in Delhi and whole cause of action arises in Delhi. After hearing both the parties, the application was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2014. After that none has appeared on behalf of the Op and not filed any written statement. The Op was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.10.2014.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP/respondent had preferred an appeal before Hon’ble State Commission which was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2015 and the order passed by this Forum was set aside and the case was remanded back. Hon’ble State Commission had directed both the parties to appear before this Forum on 29.09.2015. Since none had turned up on behalf of the OP, therefore, notice through registered post was issued to it for 18.04.2016.  The case was again posted for 06.05.2016 for the appearance of the OP but till today the OP has not bothered to appear before this Forum to contest the complaint.
5. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Ex.C-A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed his evidence.
6. We have heard complainant appearing in person and have also perused the record.
7. It is admitted that the complainant is engaged in industrial and infrastructure development within the State of Haryana and is nodal agency of the state. The OP vide its communication/letter dated 16.12.2012(Annexure C-2) addressed to Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh stating itself to be an institution established by the Planning Commission offered its services in Central, State & Local Governments in its specialized program “South East Asian Models of Infrastructure Development” and has specialized experience in organizing and conducting such like programs which included services of transportation, boarding and lodging. The Op has also mentioned in the letter that it would organize and conduct the program from 16-23 May, 2013 at Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand and expenses for the service was fixed at Rs.1,96,000/- per participant. The complainant vide its letter dated 17.04.2013 (Annexure C-3) gave its acceptance to the proposal of Op and also gave particulars of its four officers who were to participate in the program. On 27.04.2013, the complainant paid Rs.7,84,000/- (Annexure C-4) to the OP through RTGS at Panchkula. But the Op changed the schedule for the program from 16-23 May 2013 to 19-26 May, 2013 (Annexure C-5). The complainant immediately vide its letter dated 13.05.2013 (Annexure C-6) conveyed the Op that due to change schedule, it was not possible for its delegates to avail the services and requested to refund the entire amount of Rs.784000/-. The complainant requested many times through e-mails (Annexure C-7) & letter (Annexure C-8). The Op intimated the complainant vide e-mail dated 17.05.2013 that refund of fee is in process but the Op did not refund the amount. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavits (Annexure C-A).
8. Moreover, the Op did not file any written statement and not appear inspite of direction issued by the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 31.08.2015 and notices issued to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against it. Though, the OP had preferred an appeal before Hon’ble State Commission which was allowed but after that the OP did not appear before this Forum despite directions issued by the Hon’ble State Commission.  No new fact, pleadings and evidence has come before this Forum. The non-appearance of the Op shows that it has nothing to say in its defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go un-rebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Op is proved.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Op is directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the amount of Rs.7,84,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt i.e. 27.04.2013.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

 

       Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

13.07.2016          S.P.ATTRI                  ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                            MEMBER         MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT