DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088
CC NO: 298/2015
D.No.___________ Dated: ______________
In the matter of:
J.P. JAIN S/o LATE SH. A.R. JAIN,
R/o BE-71, SHALIMAR BAGH,
Delhi-110088. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
INSIGHT CITY CABS & INSIGHT HOSPITALITY SERVICES,
(UNITS OF INSIGHT SERVICES LTD.)
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Sh. DALIP KUMAR UPADHYAY,
S/o SH. RAM SURESH UPADHYAY,
R/o D-18-F, SAURABH VIHAR,
JAITPUR, NEW DELHI. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 02.03.2015
Date of Decision: 27.03.2017
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP on the allegations that on the basis of an advertisement of the OP, the complainant invested a sum of Rs.1,12,800/- which was duly acknowledged by the OP vide receipt no.012 dated 15.03.2008. The complainant alleged that the investment was made by his son Sh. Pankaj Jain who has expired and was unmarried and he died intestate and the complainant being his father and first class successor has filed the complaint. After the investment was made a deed of agreement dated 20.03.2008 was signed between both the parties at the residence of the complainant. The investment was made by the complainant for the purchase of a ‘vehicle’ under the ownership of OP and the OP was to get it financed from any financer and the EMIs etc. were to be paid by the OP alongwith salary of driver, wear and tear expenses of the vehicle, fuel expenses, traffic challans etc. were the responsibilities of the OP. The duration of the agreement was 5 years and the OP was to pay an amount of Rs.5,200/- p.m. to the complainant and the OP issued 12 cheques from 24.04.2008 commencing from 24.04.2008 to 23.03.2009 and again issued 12 more cheques of Rs.5,200/- each in favour of the complainant commencing from 24.04.2009 to 22.03.2010. These cheques were encashed in the account of the complainant. The OP issued another 12 cheques of Rs.5,200/- each in favour of the complainant w.e.f. 24.04.2010 to 23.03.2011. The cheque of Rs.5,200/- for the month of April-2010 was encahsed in the account of the complainant and the cheque no. ‘028569’ dated 24.05.2010 was bounced for the reason “funds insufficient.” OP also issued 2 post dated cheques of Rs.62,400/- each in favour of the complainant which are dated 24.03.2012 and 24.03.2013. The OP also issued one preference share certificate containing 5000 shares of Rs.10/- each on 25.03.2008 and the total value of the shares comes to Rs.50,000/-. In addition to this the OP also issued one golden bonus card of Rs.18,000/- payable to the complainant on 20.03.2013 being the date of its maturity.
2. The complainant further alleged that vide another agreement dated 13.07.2009 which was duly signed by both the parties, the complainant invested a sum of Rs.33,430/- which was duly received by the OP vide receipt no.402 dated 10.07.2009 and the duration of the scheme was 12 months and the OP issued 12 cheques of Rs.4,173/- each commencing from 13.08.2009. The amount of 9 cheques of Rs.4,173/- each was duly encashed in the account of the complainant but the cheque no.‘310252’ dated 17.05.2010 was dishonored for want of sufficient funds. The complainant accordingly alleged that he is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,62,519/- being the total sum of the cheques given by the OP and on demand by the complainant, the OP expressed inability to pay the same without any assurance to pay the said amount in future and thus there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP.
3. On these allegations, the complainant has filed the complaint with a prayer to direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.2,62,519/- and compensation and cost of litigation charges of Rs.25,000/-.
4. Notice was issued to the OP and was delivered to OP through speed post and on 13.04.2015 a vakalatnama was filed on behalf of OP and copy of complaint alongwith documents was supplied and opportunity was given to OP to file written statement on 05.08.2015. On 05.08.2015 cost of Rs.500/- was imposed on OP and another opportunity was given to OP to file written statement on 08.12.2015 and the cost was paid by the counsel for OP to the complainant on 05.08.2015. Again the matter was listed on 24.02.2016. However no reply was filed by the OP and the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written submissions.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed copy of death certificate of Sh. Pankaj Jain, copies of agreements dated 20.03.2008 and 13.07.2009 executed between the complainant and the OP. The complainant has also filed copies of receipts dated 25.03.2008 and 09.07.2009 regarding deposit of Rs.1,12,800/- and Rs.33,430/- respectively, copies of 11 cheques of Rs.5,200/- each and also filed copies of 2 cheques of Rs.62,400/- each and also filed copy of preference share certificate, copy of golden bonus card, copies of 3 cheques of Rs.4,173/- each issued by the OP and also filed copy of return memo dated 25.05.2014 of Standard Chartered Bank regarding return of cheque of Rs.4,173/-.
6. We have gone through the record, the complaint, the evidence of the complainant in the light of provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For the sake of convenience relevant provisions of sections 2 (d) & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are reproduced here as under:
Section 2 (d) “consumer means any person who,-
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised pr partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires of avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;
Section 12: Manner in which complaint shall be made- (1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by:
- The consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such service provided or agreed to be provided;
- Any recognized consumer association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided is a member of such association or not;
- One or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested; or
- The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, either in its individual capacity or as a representative of interests of the consumers in general.
7. A perusal of the alleged agreements placed on record by the complainant does not show that the OP has sold any item or has promised to give any item after deposit of Rs.1,12,000/- and Rs.33,430/- by the complainant. These documents clearly show that the complainant has invested the amount of Rs.1,12,000/- and Rs.33,430/- with the OP for a commercial purpose and as such these documents do not show that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. There may be a dispute between the parties regarding payment or otherwise, with respect to the cheques allegedly issued by the OP.
8. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to show that he is a consumer within the definition of section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly we did not find any merit in the complaint and is dismissed.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 27th March, 2017.
BARIQ AHMAD USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
