Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/1/2021

Om Parkash S/o Lt Kapuria Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Golden Lion Canteen - Opp.Party(s)

15 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.01 of 2021

                                                     Date of institution: 01.01.2021                                                         

                                                     Date of decision:15.02.2022

                         

Om Parkash son of late Sh.Kapuria Ram resident of village Devidasspura, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

Golden Lion Canteen Pipli District Kurukshetra, through its Manager.

                                                                          ….Opposite party.

                Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:      None for the complainant.

                 Sh.Ajmer Singh Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been moved by Sh.Om Parkash against Golden Lion Canteen Pipli-Opposite Parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is a retired person from Army. It is stated that on 9.6.2020, the complainant approached the OP for issuance of new Liquor Card and in this respect the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.135/-  vide receipt No.1433488 dated 9.06.2020. It is further stated that on 22.10.2020 again the complainant approached the OP and requested to issue the new liquor card but the OP again demanded an amount of Rs.135/- from the complainant for the same purpose, though the complainant had already paid the above said amount and asked from the OP and  why the OP wants to deposit the above said amount but the OP refused to listen the complainant.  Then the complainant again  deposited the amount of Rs.135/- on 22.10.2020 and then only the liquor card has been issued. Thus, it is alleged that getting of amount of  Rs.135/- twice from the complainant for one purpose amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP.  Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed that the OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.135/- alongwith the compensation ofRs.2.00 lacs for deficiency in services on the part of the OP alongwith litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.   It is stated that however, a receipt given at the time of documentation to all person, who are applying of new cards where the amount to be paid is written. The amount is only received at the time of issuance of new card.  It is mentioned that as a proof that money not paid/received during the time of documentation, signature of each individual are being taken on  register for records. As per record no amount of Rs.135/- was received from the complainant on 9.6.2020 and the complainant has also put his signatures on reguister regarding amount “Not Paid” which is annexure R-1. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. While denying all other allegations made in the complaint specifically, preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability and suppression of true and material facts have been raised and it was submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit  Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and closed his evidence.

 

5.             On the other hand, OP in support of its case has filed  affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7 and closed its evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the OP  and the complainant has not come forward to advance arguments in support of his case.

8.             As per the case of the OP, the amount for issuance of card is received at the time of issuance of the card and at the time of applying for issuance of the card only a slip is issued to the person and on the basis of such slip, liquor is delivered to the said person. The amount is only received once and that too at the time of issuance of the card. In this case also on the date of applying for card i.e. 9.6.2020  amount of Rs.135/- was not received and it was only received  at the time of issuance of the card. Therefore, the allegations raised by the complainant are vague and not sustainable  and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.

9.             The perusal of document i.e. page of register Ex.R-2 shows that the  complainant applied for issuance of liquor card on 9.6.2020 and he has signed this page of the register wherein “Not Paid” is mentioned. The receipt.  The complainant is literate person and he has signed in English against the word “ not paid”. Further the  perusal of letter Ex.R-4  under clause 2(d) it is clearly mentioned that ESM will not pay any amount, while depositing the application with the URC.ESM will pay the amount (as applicable to the URC only while collecting the new canteen Smart card from the URC.”.   The complainant received the Liquor Card only on 22.10.2020 and then he has only paid the amount of Rs.135/- to the OP. The receipt Ex.R-1 is formal in nature and on the basis of this receipt, the OP was issuing liquor to the  complainant till the receipt of the Liquor Card. As transpired from the letter Ex.R-6, new receipt was issued to the complainant on his insisting for the same. Moreover, the complainant has not appeared despite calling the case several times. Therefore, the version put forwarded by the OP coupled with the documentary evidence completely goes unrebutted and unchallenged and it is held that the amount of  Rs.135/- was paid by the complainant only one time and that too on 22.10.2020 at the time of issuance of the Liquor card and the allegations made in the present complaint are without any basis and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.

10.            In view of our above discussion and findings, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 15.02.2022.                                                      President.

 

                                                Member             Member.