Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/34

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.S Electrical works - Opp.Party(s)

Jatinder Marria

14 Jan 2020

ORDER

  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :           34 of 2019

Date of Institution :     05.02.2019

 Date of Decision :       14.01.2020

Ashok Kumar aged about 53 years, son of Om Parkash resident of Partap Nagar, Street No.5, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

J. S Electrical Works, Moga Road, Kotkapura through its Prop. Jagtar Singh.

......OP

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh Jatinder Marria, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for OP.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OP to replace the old generator with new one and for further directing them to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one 25 KVA generator worth Rs.2,85,750/-from

cc no.-34 of 2019

OP vide bill dated 20.05.2017. It is submitted that after about 6 months of purchase, said generator started giving problem and did not work properly. It stopped working and then, complainant made complaint to OP, who sent his mechanic named Kala to check the generator. Said mechanic repaired the generator but it again stopped working after few days. Complainant again requested OP to repair the said generator, but OP did not pay any heed to his genuine request and did not do anything needful. After that, complainant hired one mechanic from Moga, who after checking the said generator told him that OP has sold the old generator after repairs to complainant and also issued forged bill for new generator. Complainant made several requests to OP to replace the said generator, but all in vain. Despite repeated requests OP, did not do anything needful, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Due to deficiency in service on behalf of OP, complainant has to suffer huge harassment and mental agony. Complainant has prayed for directions to OP to replace the generator and for also directing OP to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

3               Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 11.02.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                      OP filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint in hand is not maintainable as it is based on false allegations. It is averred

cc no.-34 of 2019

that answering OP never sold any generator to complainant against bill no.7 dated 20.05.2017. Complainant has not placed on record original bill and alleged bill has not been issued by them to complainant. It is averred that answering OP maintains its complete account books for daily routine business and daily accounts for sale and purchase are also maintained by them. Moreover, OP also submits the return of VAT/GST regularly in due course of business and submit the same for scrutiny to Taxation Department. It is further averred that bill produced by complainant bears GST number on 20.05.2017, but in reality answering OP got the GST number after 1^st , July 2017. Allegations of complainant for sending the mechanic by OP  are also totally denied as answering OP never sent any of his mechanic named Kala to his place for repairing the alleged generator, though in reality answering OP neither sold any generator to complainant nor issued any kind of bill for this purpose. All these allegations levelled by complainant are wrong and incorrect and he has filed the present complaint only to harm the reputation of OP and just to cause harassment to same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and all the allegations regarding relief sought too are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5                               Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 10 and then, closed the evidence.

cc no.-34 of 2019

6                             Ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jagtar Singh Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-15, Annexure OP-A and then, also closed the same on behalf of OP.

7                             We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                           After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased 25 KVA generator refrigerator worth Rs. 2,85,750/- from OP against proper bill but after about six months of purchase, said generator started giving trouble to him as it did not work properly and stopped working. Complainant brought the matter to the notice of OP and OP sent his mechanic to repair the generator, but just after few days, generator again stopped working. He again lodged complaint with OP, but OP did not pay any heed to his requests. Allegation of complainant is that complainant hired a private mechanic to repair the generator, who apprised him that Opposite Party has sold old generator to him after doing repairs. Grievance of the complainant is that OP has sold him old generator against bill dated 20.05.2017 and despite repeated requests, Opposite Party has not bothered to replace the same. It amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for replacing the said generator or for seeking direction to OP to refund the cost price of said product alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses incurred by him. In

cc no.-34 of 2019

reply, OP has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and baseless and stressed mainly on the point that Opposite Party does not deal in selling old generators. Generator in question has not been sold by OP to complainant. He has brought before the Forum that that bill placed on record by complainant is forged one and has been procured by complainant by some wrong means. Bill no. 7 dated 20.05.2017 has not been issued by OP. It is observed that Envoice No. 07 dated 20.05.2017 placed on record by complainant bears GST Number 03APYPS5035C1ZR and to contradict the same, ld counsel for OP has brought our attention towards document Ex OP-5 which is original bill no.7 dated 17.05.2017 issued in the name of one Atma Singh that clearly shows Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) against which complainant has given detail regarding Value Added TAX (VAT) deducted by him. Ex OP-6 is bill no.8 dated 20.05.2017 that also shows VAT deduction. OP has placed on record cogent documents to prove their assertion that during the  month of May, 2017, only VAT system was prevalent and OP procured GST Number after 1^st July, 2017. To prove this fact, the OP produced on record copy of document Certificate of Provisional Registration Ex OP-14, vide which OP Firm was allotted GST Number. Now, when the GST Number of OP Firm was not in existence on 20.05.2017, and even GST was not implemented by the Government at relevant time, then how, the GST Number of OP Firm which was allotted about one and half month later to the issuance of bill is written on the bill

cc no.-34 of 2019

dated 20.05.2017. The GST Number which was not in existence on 20.05.2017 cannot be mentioned on the bill on same day when at the relevant time, VAT was levied by the Government and not the GST. it has made it highly doubtful that the bill dated 20.05.2017 produced by the complainant as Ex C-2 is forged and ante dated and is prepared by the complainant afterwards only to degrade and harass the OP Firm. Moreover, from the perusal of document Annexure OP-A, which is copy of Report given by Handwriting & Finger Print Expert Anil Kumar Gupta, wherein he has clearly given observation that disputed signatures allegedly appearing to be of Jagtar Singh on the bill Ex C-2 are not of Opposite Party/ Jagtar Singh. After careful examination of documents, said expert opined that disputed signature on mark Q1 is forged signature by impersonation and is not similar in their writing characteristics with the standard signatures of Jagtar Singh. Thus, in the light of report given by expert, there remains no doubt that signatures on  bill Ex C-2 are not identical with the standard signatures of  Jagtar Singh and bill placed on record by complainant is a forged one. Opposite Party has placed on record cogent and sufficient evidence to prove that no such sale of generator has ever been made by them  to complainant and bill dated 20.05.2017 bearing GST number has never been issued by them. on the contrary, there is nothing on record by complainant party to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of OP.                                                                                            

 

cc no.-34 of 2019

9                                              From above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed against OP being devoid of merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the complaint case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 14.01.2020             

 

 (Param Pal Kaur)                       (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                              Member                             President