DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C. C. No. : 382 of 2017
Date of Institution : 28.11.2017
Date of Decision : 3.04.2019
Jaswinder Singh aged about 36 years, son of Gurdev Singh r/o Village Machhi Bugra, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. Mobile No.94174-72875.
.....Complainant
Versus
- Kotkapura Gun House, Near Lightan Wala Chowk, Jaitu Road, Kotkapura through its Prop. Gurbachan Singh Toni.
- Gurbachan Singh Toni, Prop of Kotkapura Gun House, Near Lightan Wala Chowk, Jaitu Road, Kotkapura,Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
..............OPs
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Jagdish Maini, Ld Counsel for Complainant,
Sh Paramjit Singh, Ld Counsel for OPs.
cc no.-382 of 2017
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the 2016 model .12 bore gun with 2017 model .12 double barrel gun and to refund the excess amount of Rs.15,100/-taken from complainant and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant holds Arms License No. DM /FZR/ Arm/ GHLK/ 0717 /15 valid from 6.07.2010 and purchase period of said Arms License was upto to 6.07.2015. It is submitted that on 14.07.2017, on assurance of OPs, complainant purchased one .12 bore double barrel gun of 2017 model worth Rs.25,000/-and also purchased 25 cartridges from OPs for Rs.2,000/-. Payment regarding purchase was given in the presence of Jagdeep Singh. OPs received the payment and supplied gun to complainant and also obtained signatures of complainant on blank bill and then filled the said bill in English. It is submitted that complainant is an illiterate person and facts of said bill were not read out to complainant. on reaching home, neighbour of complainant namely Jagtar Singh
cc no.-382 of 2017
inspected the said gun and told him that model of said gun was 2016 and it was not of 2017 model and even the bill was of Rs.11,800/-which included Rs.10,000/- as cost of gun, Rs.900/-as CGST and Rs.900/-as SGST. Though complainant paid Rs.27,000/-to Ops in total i.e Rs.25,000/-as cost of gun and Rs.2000/-for cartridges, but OPs issued bill for only Rs.11,800/- and thus, in this way, OPs played fraud upon complainant and received Rs.15,100/-in excess from complainant and gave him gun of 2016 model instead of 2017 model. Very next day i.e on 15.07.2017, complaint alongwith Jagdeep Singh approached Ops and requested him to supply the gun of 2017 model and also requested him to return the excess amount of Rs.15,100/-received by Ops from complainant, but OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the another. Instead of replacing the said gun and returning the excess amount, OPs insulted complainant in the presence of said Jagdeep Singh and Jagtar Singh and used filthy language and also threatened him of dire consequences. Complainant complained about this matter to Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, but all in vain. Complainant also served legal notice dated 24.10.2017 to OPs, but that also served no purpose. This act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to provide 2017 model .12 double barrel gun and also to refund Rs.15,100/-
cc no.-382 of 2017
received in excess from complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs 10,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.
3 Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 4.12.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.
4 On receipt of the notice, the OPs filed written reply wherein they admitted that gun in question was sold by them to complainant and complainant is their consumer, but they have totally denied the allegations of complainant that they received Rs.15,100/-in excess from complainant and it is also denied that they sold wrong model of gun to complainant. It is averred by Ops that they have supplied the same model of gun to complainant which they have sold to him. Ops never showed him 2017 model, rather OPs showed him 2016 model and they sold the same 2016 to complainant and only amount mentioned in bill was taken from complainant. It is completely refuted that they charged Rs.25,000/-for gun to complainant and gave him bill for only Rs11,800/-.Complainant has filed the present complaint on false and fictitious facts and he never approached answering OPs with any complaint in his gun. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands
cc no.-382 of 2017
and he has been estopped from his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is further denied that they ever received the signatures of complainant on any blank bill and filled the amount on their own. Everything about model of gun and its cost price was explained to complainant and after careful consideration of same, complainant signed the said bill. Moreover, sale report of said gun was also sent to District Magistrate, Faridkot and thus, there is no question of concealment of any facts from complainant. It is reiterated that complainant has filed this complaint only to harass the answering OPs and to obtain undue advantage from them. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite parties.
5 Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-12 and then, closed the evidence.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurbachan Singh, Proprietor
cc no.-382 of 2017
as Ex OP-1, documents Ex. OP-2 to 11 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.
7 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.
8 Ld Counsel for complainant argued that on assurance of OPs, complainant purchased one .12 bore double barrel gun of 2017 model worth Rs.25,000/-and also purchased 25 cartridges from OPs for Rs.2,000/- on 14.07.2017. Payment was made in the presence of Jagdeep Singh. OPs gave gun to complainant and obtained his signatures on blank bill and then filled the said bill in English. It is further argued that complainant is an illiterate person and OPs did not read out facts of said bill to complainant. on reaching home, neighbour of complainant namely Jagtar Singh inspected the said gun and told him that model of said gun was 2016 and it was not of 2017 model and even the bill was of Rs.11,800/-which included Rs.10,000/- as cost of gun, Rs.900/-as CGST and Rs.900/-as SGST. Though complainant paid Rs.27,000/-to Ops in total i.e Rs.25,000/-as cost of gun and Rs.2000/-for cartridges, but OPs issued bill for only Rs.11,800/-. OPs malafidely received Rs.15,100/-in excess from complainant and gave him gun of 2016 model instead of 2017
cc no.-382 of 2017
model. Next day, complaint alongwith Jagdeep Singh approached Ops and requested him to supply the gun of 2017 model and also requested him to return the excess amount of Rs.15,100/-received from him, but OPs kept putting him off and instead of replacing the said gun and returning the excess amount, OPs insulted complainant in the presence of said Jagdeep Singh and Jagtar Singh and used filthy language for them. Complainant complained about this to Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, but all in vain. Legal notice issued to OPs, also served no purpose. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.
9 To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that it is true that they sold said gun and he is their consumer, but denied that they received Rs.15,100/-in excess from him. It is also denied that they sold wrong model of gun to complainant. They have sold the same model of gun to complainant which they showed him. Ops never showed him 2017 model, rather OPs showed him 2016 model and they sold the same 2016 to him and only amount mentioned in bill was taken from complainant. It is completely refuted that they charged Rs.25,000/-for gun to complainant and gave him bill for only Rs11,800/-.Complainant never approached them with any complaint in his gun. Ops have denied all the
cc no.-382 of 2017
allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that they never received the signatures of complainant on any blank bill and filled the amount on their own. Every thing about model and its cost was told to complainant and after careful consideration of same, complainant signed the said bill. Sale report of said gun was sent to District Magistrate, Faridkot and there is no concealment of any facts from complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
10 From the careful perusal of record placed on file and arguments advanced by parties, it is observed OPs showed 2017 model gun to complainant, but gave him gun of 2016 model and even OPs charged excess amount from him. To prove his pleadings, complainant has placed on record document Ex C-7, copy of bill dated 14.07.2017 wherein cost of gun alongwith cartridges is written over as Rs.11,800/-. Ex C-4 is affidavit given by Jagdeep Singh wherein he has cleared that complainant made the said purchase with him and they purchased 2017 model gun and paid Rs.27,000/-to OPs. Ex C-8 is copy of legal notice got served by complainant to Ops through his counsel wherein complainant has made request to Ops to give him 2017 model gun, which was ordered by him and also prayed for refunding the excess amount received from him. Complainant has further narrated his grievance to
cc no.-382 of 2017
Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot through Ex C-12. Ex C-1 is affidavit of complainant through which he has reiterated his grievance before this Forum. On the other hand, Ops are silent about the allegations of complainant which he brought before the Forum through documentary evidence, however, it is duly admitted by Ops that they sold the said gun to complainant, but they have denied that they charged excess amount from complainant and gave old model of gun to him. It is observed that OPs have failed to produce any document in support of their version. Complainant has produced cogent evidence and there is no doubt on the authenticity of documents produced by him. Had Ops given effective and loyal services and resolved the grievance of complainant upto his satisfaction, he need not have filed the present complaint.
11 In the light of above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that OPs have been deficient in rendering services to complainant as they showed 2017 model of gun , but handed him over gun of 2016 model and even charged excessive price from him, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. We are fully convinced with the arguments advanced by complainant and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OPs and they are directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,100/-excessively charged from complainant and to pay Rs.8000/-to complainant for deficiency in service in selling old model gun on
cc no.-382 of 2017
the pretext of 2017 model. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to him on account of litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of its receipt, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum:
Dated: 3.04.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal) Member President
