ORDER

RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the complaint  that complainant had been in possession of a tractor-trolley meant for agricultural activities and the same was turned stale and there has been holes due to the rust in it and petitioner/complainant intended to get the old portion of said trolley replaced by new metallic sheet. That complainant alongwith his brother namely Gulam Mohd. Took the aforesaid trolley with their tractor on 28.07.2017 to get it repaired by respondent at their workshop at Nuh-Ferozpur Jhirka Road, near to Rest House Road, Nuh were respondents have installed their workshop for making an repairing of trolleys etc. and welding activities. That respondents got inspected the aforesaid trolley of complainant and after its due inspection and observation, respondents told petitioner/complainant and his brother that the metallic sheet of the said trolley has been destroyed and it is to be replaced by new metallic sheet. It was further disclosed by respondents that they will replace the existing stale metallic sheet with the metallic sheet used in the aeroplanes and the same will be purchased and brought from Palwal and respondents further calculated the total expenses in this regard to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Respondents further apprised complainant that respondents will make the trolley like a new one and the aforesaid amount will be inclusive of the paints etc. on the said trolley. That respondents further told complainant to pay some amount to them in cash as they were not having the amount with them for the purchase of metallic sheet used in aeroplane which was to be purchased and brought from Palwal and to be fabricated in the said trolley in place of damaged portion of the said trolley. That on having agreed on the aforesaid terms and conditions, respondent no. 1 received an amount of Rs. 8,000/- from complainant in cash on 28.07.2017 itself and the said trolley was put into possession of respondents for getting the same repaired as per terms and conditions mentioned herein above and respondents further apprised complainant to get the said trolley after its repair after ten days. That complainant alongwith his brother namely Gulam Mohd. went to respondents on 17.08.2017 at their aforesaid welding shop with the tractor and on reaching there, complainant noticed that respondents have repaired and replaced the said trolley with old metallic scraped sheet which appeared to be purchased by respondents from scrap store (kabadi). It was further noticed that respondent respondents welded the replaced sheet consisting of several parts and was got welded and there has been considerable gaps on welding points. That when complainant and his brother objected and brought into their kind notice and knowledge that they have replaced the existing metallic damaged/destroyed sheet with low quality and rusted sheet by welding it in an improper manner by getting welded several parts of the same to which respondents bused complainant and his brother and respondents manhandled them and openly threatened to get complainant and his brother to done to death and further threatened complainant and his brother to get the trolley otherwise it will be sold as scrap-iron (kabadi). Respondents did not return the old parts of damaged trolley and they have misappropriated the same for their own gain. That sensing the threats and unruly and rude behavior of respondents, complainant and his brother had no option but to take their trolley. That on 24.08.2017, complainant approached respondents at their place of work at Nuh to get refunded the advance amount of Rs. 8,000/- which was paid to respondent no. 1 on 28.07.2017 as respondents did not perform their work as per terms and conditions and did not repair the said trolley as agreed, to which respondents grappled with complainant and made attempt to murder complainant by electrocution by bringing naked electric wires having electric current of high voltage therein and tried to touch those electric wires with the body of complainant to which complainant get rescued himself from the clutches of respondents and save himself and respondents further threatened complainant to kill him to death as and when respondents get an opportunity. That complainant immediately reported the matter to the polices and moved several applications to the police authorities including lodging a representation dated 24.08.2017 to the CM Grievances Redress Forum, Nuh and subsequent reminder dated 03.10.2017 to Superintendent of Police, Nuh and subsequently the matter was investigated by police but respondents in collusion with police got succeeded in getting no penal action initiated against respondents thereby the complaint in the matter was came to rest against respondents in collusion with police. Police failed to discharge his duties as per law and procedure thereby paving way to escape respondents from legal punishment and police has submitted a report and observation to the higher police authority which is contrary to the law and procedure thereby giving clean chit to respondents while incident relates to cognizable offences but police did not register FIR against respondents and thus  concerned police office is liable to be prosecuted for the commission of offence punishable under section 166, 166-A, 167, 197 to 202, 217, 218 & 120B of Indian Penal Code and respondents are liable to be prosecuted for the commission of offences punishable under section 323, 307, 406, 420 & 506 of IPC. The complainant has instituted a criminal complaint against the respondents and Sh. Bachhu Singh, IO/Incharge of Police Post, Nuh which is pending in the Court of Sh. Gulshan Verma, JMIC, Nuh. Hence this complaint with prayer to direct the respondent to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- and apart from this, Rs. 8,000/- which already stands paid to the respondents thus total amount comes to be Rs. 98,000/-.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to respondents. Respondent in its reply has submitted that the complainant has not paid the balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- of repairing charges of his trolley and when the respondents asked the complainant to pay the said balance amount, the complainant being retired police officer, has threatened to falsely implicate the respondents in some false case and then filed this false complaint. It is further submitted  that the complainant made a complaint before CM window Nuh and the same was forwarded to SHO, P.S. Nuh and the In-charge of Police Post Akera, Investigate the matter and during investigation, police found both the respondents innocence and it was duly found that the complainant made the complaints in order to avoid the payment of balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondents for repairing his trolley. It is submitted that respondent no. 2 is not the owner of mechanic of alleged shop as he is driver by profession and he has no concern with the present matter.  It is submitted that the trolley of the complainant was having holes and was in damaged condition and the complainant came to the respondent no. 1 to get it repaired. It is correct to the extent that on 27.07.2017, the complainant came to respondent no. 1 for getting his trolley repaired as the respondent no. 1 is running his shop of welding. It is submitted that after inspecting the trolley of the complainant it was told that some sheet in the trolley was to be changed/replaced with new one and some of parts were to be repaired as it was in a bad condition. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 1 ready to get repaired the said trolley of the complainant and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was agreed to be paid by the complainant to respondent no. 1 as repair charges because some old portion of the said trolley had been changed/replaced by new sheet. It is denied that he sheet was replaced with the metallic sheet used I the aeroplane or same will be purchased and brought from Palwal. It is denied that the respondent apprised complainant that respondents will make the trolley like a new one or aforesaid  amount will be inclusive of paints etc. It is submitted that at the time of delivery of said trolley, the complainant has only paid Rs. 8,000/- with assurance to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- within few days. But the complainant has not paid the said balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- and filed this false complaint. It is denied that complainant has paid any amount in advance to the respondent as alleged. It is submitted that when the trolley was left for repair, no amount was paid in advance by the complainant and whole amount was incurred by the respondent no. 1.  It is submitted that the complainant after satisfying with the work of the respondent no. 1 has taken the possession of his trolley and he has paid Rs. 8,000/- to the respondent no. 1 and assured to pay balance amount of Rs. 2000/- within few days. It is further submitted that when the respondent no. 1 demanded his money, he has made false allegations that old metallic sheet purchased from old scrap was used in the repair and there were other lapse in the work. It is denied that complainant ever noticed that respondents have repaired the trolley of complainant with old scrap sheets. It is denied that the complainant ever brought to the notice of respondent that sheet was of low quality and rusted sheet or there was improper welding  the said trolley. It is also denied that respondents manhandled the complainant and his brother or made any threat, as alleged. It is also denied that respondents threatened the complainant and his brother to done to death or further threatened the complainant to further sold the trolley of the complainant. It is submitted that the possession of trolley has already been taken by the complainant and made this false complaint. It is denied that sensing the threats and unruly and rude behavior of respondents, complainant and his brother had no option except to take their trolley. It is submitted that the complainant had taken the possession of trolley while satisfying with the work done by the respondent. It is denied that complainant ever approached the respondents to return the amount of Rs. 8,000/-. It is submitted that when respondent no. 1 demanded balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant, he has filed this false complaint. It is denied that respondents grappled with the complainant or made any attempt to murder the complainant by electrocution by brining necked electric wires having electric current of high voltage therein or tried to touch those wires with the body of complainant. It is submitted that in a complaint made by the complaint to CM, in which in-charge of police post Akera has investigated the matter and the Investigating Officer has submitted his report finding the respondent innocent as an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was outstanding as balance amount of the work done by the respondent no. 1. It is submitted that the police has submitted his fair report. It is denied that the police colluded with the respondent or the police failed to discharge his duties as alleged. It is denied that the police or the respondents are liable to be prosecuted as alleged. It is denied that the respondents miserably failed to provide efficient service to the complainant or caused deficiency of services or the complainant has suffered any mental agony, harassment and financial loss etc. as alleged. It is also denied that eh respondent have violated any term and condition agreed upon between the parties or the respondents have committed any negligence in providing efficient customer services to the complainant.  Hence, complainant is not entitled for any claim  and complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with costs.

3.                          Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for OP closed the evidence after tendering the affidavit Ex. RW1/A and document Annexure R-1.

4.                          Arguments heard and filed perused.

5.                          The complainant cannot be permitted in the eyes of law to convert the problem into cheating and deficiency of service since, the complainant has already initiated criminal complaint against the respondents in the court of law u/s 323/307/406/420 & 506 of IPC when his grievance was not addressed by the local police. Clearly the complainant has opted to also initiate this matter in the court of law as is evident from his complaint before us. Hence, this forum cannot take cognigence of this matter on the point of jurisdiction in this matter.       

6.                In view of the above, the present complaint fails being devoid of jurisdiction and the same is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 21.12.2018                                  (Rajbir Singh Dahiya)

                                                                                  President

                      District Consumer Disputes

  Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).

                    (Urmil Beniwal)

                              Member    

                    District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).