DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA Complaint No.194/18.11.2008. Decided on : 20.04.2009 Sh.Harnek Singh S/o Sh.Mochan Singh, village Phaphre Bhai ke , Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Goodluck Machinery Store, Cinema Road, Mansa through its Proprietor /Partner. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. P.K.Sapolia, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. Satish Mehta, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party. Before: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Sh.Harnek Singh son of Sh. Mochan Singh,a resident of village Phaphre Bhai ke, against Goodluck Machinery Store, Cinema Road, Mansa through its Proprietor /Partner, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the Act), for refund of Rs.1788/- and payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.60,000/- and costs of filing of the complaint in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. Briefly stated case of the complainant is as under: Contd........2 : 2 : 2. That the opposite party supplies agriculture implements of good quality to the farmers of the area. The complainant approached him and placed demand for the purchase of a transformer, electric poles and other electrical equipments for installation of electric connection under OYT scheme launched by the Punjab State Electricity Board after estimate of Rs.90,000/- was prepared. On 10.5.2008, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was deposited by the complainant, as advance payment for above said equipments and the opposite party gave him assurance to supply the above material within a week. The complainant approached 10/15 times to the opposite party, but it did not supply him any transformer and has issued the bill bearing Serial No.457 and 458 both dated 5.5.2008 on back date taking advantage of the illiteracy of the complainant. The other agriculturists of the area after purchase of the transformer from the opposite party got electric connection from the board, who withdrew the scheme because of which complainant was deprived of his right to secure electric connection, under the scheme and has suffered financial loss to the extent of Rs.60,000/- for want of irrigation facility to his land. The complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment and has incurred avoidable expenses due to the conduct of the opposite party , as such, he is entitled to seek compensation from them and costs of filing of the complaint. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, the opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint by taking preliminary objections; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint because only civil suit is maintainable. On merits, it is admitted that opposite party is supplying quality agricultural products to the agriculturists in the area and issue bills, relied upon by the complainant. It is submitted that the agricultural implements, which were sold to the complainant, have been correctly mentioned in the bill and no amount was received from the complainant, in advance, for supply of transformer, as he never raised such Contd........3 : 3 : demand. It is also contended that opposite party has supplied transformer to the agriculturists who have placed the order and paid the price, but it is denied that complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment or has incurred financial loss due to any deficiency in service. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, has been denied, and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint, has been made. 4. On being called by the Forum to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ext.C-1 and photocopy of documents Ext.C-2 to C-6 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party, tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Moti Lal, Proprietor of the opposite party firm Ext.OP-1 and closed evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the complainant Sh. P.K.Sapolia, Advocate, has submitted that bills in the name of the complainant have been issued in back date taking advantage of his illiteracy and inspite of demand placed by him for supply of transformer, despite payment of cost thereof in advance by him, they have filed to do so, before termination of the scheme launched by the Board because of which the complainant has been deprived of irrigation facility and has suffered huge financial loss, whereas farmers of his village, have gained advantage, because of supply of transformer approved by the board in time. Learned counsel has also submitted that negligence on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, as such, the complainant is entitled to seek compensation for financial loss suffered by him including compensation for mental and physical harassment and costs spent by him in addition to refund of Rs.17,781/- paid by him in advance. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party Sh. S.K.Mehta, Advocate, has submitted that there is considerable delay on the Contd........4 : 4 : part of the complainant himself, because estimate was passed by the board in the year 2006, but as per treasury challan, he deposited the amount demanded by the board on 30.5.2008. Learned counsel submitted that complainant has not produced any evidence to establish that he deposited any amount on account of advance and he is not illiterate person, as he has affixed his signatures on the instant complaint in English, as such, no significance can be attached to his plea that bills showing purchase of other material, have been issued in back date. Learned counsel further submitted that bill showing advance of Rs.50,000/-, has not been issued out of the book maintained by the opposite party in regular course of profession like bills of other material and complainant has failed to identify the signatures and handwriting of the person, who issued the bill in his favour about the deposit of any amount by him in advance. Learned counsel has argued that complainant cannot take advantage of his own omission to supply the transformer to the board, within the stipulated period and urge that he has not been deprived of electric connection due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no written agreement between the parties for supply of transformer, as such, even if the case of the complainant is assumed to be correct, that there was oral agreement, then for enforcement thereof, the complainant is required to approach the civil court for grant of relief, as such, his complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and deserves to be dismissed with special costs. 8. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party, because the complainant has placed reliance upon bill Ext.C-2 regarding deposit of amount of Rs.50,000/- as advance for supply of transformer. He has not examined any witness who may be conversant with the signatures and handwriting of the person who issued the same. Moreover, this bill is not on printed performa of the invoice book maintained by the opposite party, in regular course of profession Contd........5 : 5 : unlike bills Ext.C-3 and C-4, admittedly, issued in his name for supply of other electric equipments. In the absence of any positive evidence, no reliance can be placed on the bill Ext.C-2. The complainant is not a rural rustic person because he has affixed his signatures in English on the instant complaint filed by him. As such, he was not expected to receive bills Ext.C-3 and C-4 from the opposite party, if they were issued in back date. The complainant has not relied upon any written agreement for supply of transformer for installation in his land. The contents of his affidavit Ext.C-1 are not corroborated by affidavit of any other person. As such, reliance cannot be placed on his affidavit, which is a self serving document, especially when the opposite party in his affidavit Ext.OP-1 has denied the liability. The complainant has himself produced on record document Ext.C-6 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Distribution) Sub Division, Budhlada in connection with placement of rough sketch of the place where electric connection was to be issued. The perusal of this document reveals that process was started on 10.4.2006 by the board for the said purpose, but the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the scheme for issuance of tubewell connection on 28.8.2007 and another sum of Rs.1,000/- on 10.4.2008, whereas bills Ext.C-3 and C-4, issuance of which has been admitted by the opposite party, are of dated 5.5.2008. As such, the delay, which has taken place in issuance of transformer before termination of scheme by the board, cannot be attributed to the opposite party alone and they cannot be said to be deficient in service from any stretch of imagination. However, we are unable to accede to the submissions made by the opposite party regarding enforcement of oral agreement because factum thereof is not proved on record by oral and documentary evidence. Moreover, the remedy under the Act is additional remedy, as provided in Section 3 of the Act. As such, complaint is maintainable, but it is bound to fail on merit. 9. In the light of the above, we have come to the conclusion, that Contd........6 : 6 : there is no deficiency, in service on the part of the opposite party and complainant is, neither entitled to any refund of the amount stated to have been deposited by him in advance, nor payment of any compensation and costs, incurred by him for filing the instant complaint. 10. Resultantly, we dismiss the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 11. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 20.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
