Haryana

Ambala

CC/53/2021

Sanjay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Modren Furniture - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Kaur

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	53/2021
Date of Institution	:	29/01/2021
Date of decision	:	01.06.2023

 

Sanjay Kumar son of Sh. Ram Murti, aged about 50 years, resident of House No.6, Kamal Vihar, near Masjid Ambala City, District Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Modren Furniture through its Proprietor/Partner Manish son of Sh.Jaipal Dhiman, Proprietor of Modern Furniture, resident of House No.1782/11, Court Road, Ambala City, District Ambala.
2. Parnav S/o Jaipal through its Proprietor/Partner Modern Furniture, resident of House No.1782/11, Court Road, Ambala City, District Ambala.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Deepak Lakhanpal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                             Shri Manoj Kumar, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                             Shri Saurbah Ahuja, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of following directions to them to refund Rs.70,000/-,  paid as advance money toward sofa set in question; Rs.20,000/- as compensation, Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from March, 2020 till payment is made.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that in the month of March, 2020 the complainant contacted the OPs  for manufacturing of a seven seater Sofa Set as per design and figure which is depicted in the photo supplied by the complainant to the OPs through whats app message for sale consideration of Rs.1,95,000/-. The complainant made advance payment of Rs.70,000/- to the OPs. The OPs even after receipt of advance consideration of Rs.70,000/- has not manufactured the seven seater Sofa set as per the requirement of complainant, despite making efforts, twice.  The OPs neither supplied the bill nor the sofa set. The complainant had always been ready and willing to pay the balance price of the Sofa set, provided the OPs supply the sofa set, as ordered by the complainant. Now the OPs are saying to the complainant that he may take the sofa set manufactured by them on payment of balance amount.  The design and quality of sofa set which the OPs wants to hand over to the complainant is not as per the design/photo as settled between the parties by way of whats app message nor they are ready to return/refund the advance of Rs.70,000/- paid to them by the complainant. On 6.11.2020 the complainant moved an application against the OPs before the SHO Incharge Police Post No.2, Ambala City upon which the OPs were called. OP No.1 who is also the partner of the modern furniture gave the statement on the behalf of modern furniture before the police to give some time to him to make his statement. Thereafter, OP No. 2 gave statement on the behalf of modern furniture and his partner no.1 in the police station and as such the police entered rapat Rozancha vide rapat No.19 dated 20.11.2020, in which the OPs admitted that the complainant gave Rs.70,000/- in advance for the sofa set in dispute and that the OPs will pay an amount of  Rs.55,000/-, to the complainant, as per settlement but to no avail.  Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, locus standi, not come with clean hands and concealed the true and material facts etc.  On merits, it has been stated that OP No. 1 has neither received any amount from the complainant nor ever agreed to manufacture a Sofa-set. OP No.1 was called by the police, whereupon, it was disclosed to the Police that he is neither the Partner nor proprietor of the firm i.e. Modern Furniture and has not received any amount from the complainant, so OP No.1 is not bound the manufacture the Sofa set. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has concealed several true and material facts from this Commission and has not come with clean hands; Sanjay Kumar is not properly authorized person to file the present complaint etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant was never willing to pay money. The complainant ordered sofa set  on the ground that he will make payment on completion thereof but when after the completion of sofa set, OP No.1 called him to pick the said sofa and to pay the consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-, he showed his inability, as a result of which, OP No.2 suffered huge loss. .The present complaint is just the shield guard of complainant to save himself from paying compensation amount to the loss occurred to OP's due to the complainant himself. OP No.2 neither sold any goods without any bill nor takes any advance without bill. The complainant must prove the dimensions and design/drawings that are claimed in complaint.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-1 alongwith documents as Annexure P-1 to P-5 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Manish son of Shri Jaipal Dhiman, resident of House No.1782/11, Court Road, Ambala City, as  Annexure RW1/A and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered documents Annexure D-1 and D-2 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant while  reiterating the contents of complaint, submitted that by neither manufacturing the sofa set, as per the specifications given by the complainant to the OPs nor refunding the part price to the tune of Rs.70,000/- paid by the complainant, the OPs are deficient in providing service.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 while reiterating the objections raised in its written version submitted that O.P. No.1 has neither received any amount from the complainant nor ever agreed to manufacture the Sofa-set, which fact was also brought to the notice of the police, when he was called after the complaint of the complainant.
9.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 while reiterating the objections raised in its written version submitted that the complainant ordered sofa set on the ground that he will make payment on completion thereof but when after the completion of the sofa set complainant was called to pick it up and to pay the consideration amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, but he showed his inability, as a result of which, OPs suffered huge loss.  He further submitted that the sofa set was manufactured as per the dimensions and design/drawings given by the complainant, but the complainant instead of taking the delivery of the same has filed the present complaint by making false allegations. 
10.           It may be stated here that perusal of record and  also from the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the parties, it is coming out that the contesting parties are leveling allegations against each other i.e. the complainant is leveling allegations to the effect that he had paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the OPs for manufacturing of the sofa set, but they failed to make the same, whereas, on the other hand, OPs No.1 and 2 are also alleging that not even a single penny has been paid to them, by the complainant. Not only as above, OP No.1 has also alleged that he has no connection whatsoever with OP No.2. Under these circumstances, the complainant has to prove that as to whom and by which mode the payment of Rs.70,000/- has been made, but he failed to provide any document in that regard and relied on statements, Annexure P-3 and P-4 which are signed by one Manish and Parnav and also police complaint Annexure P-5. It is significant to mention here that we have gone through the said documents and did not find anything mentioned therein, to hold that the amount of Rs.70,000/- had been received by the OPs from the complainant in respect of the sofa set in question. Thus, from the sequence of events narrated above, we are of the considered view, that to ascertain as to whether, OPs at any stage, have received any amount from the complainant towards the sofa set in question, whether the alleged sofa set was made as per the specifications given by the complainant to the OPs, whether OPs No.1 and 2 have any connection with each other and whether there was any deficiency in providing service on the part of the OPs etc., are complicated questions which will need voluminous evidences and witnesses of all the persons involved in the transaction in question, which cannot be done before this Commission in summary proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in TRAI Foods Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company & Ors., III (2012) CPJ 17 (SC),  under similar circumstance has also observed:

"6.  The only question to be decided is, when should this jurisdiction be exercised by the Commission.  In our view the Commission should address itself to the quantity of the claim, the nature of the claim, the nature of the evidence which would be required to be submitted both in respect of the claim and the damages suffered and the nature of the legal issues before deciding that the matter ought to be decided by the Civil Courts in the regular course. It is not disputed that the Consumer Forum has been set up to grant speedy remedy.  The Consumer Forums have been given the responsibility of achieving this object.  They were not meant to duplicate the Civil Court, and subject the litigants to delays which have become endemic in the Civil Courts.

7.  Although the reason given in the impugned order of the Commission for referring the present matter to the Civil Court is cryptic, we have been through the records filed before us and are satisfied that the Commission's decision was correct.  There is no doubt having regard to the nature of the claim, the large amount of damages claimed, and the extensive inquiry into the evidence which would be necessary in order to resolve the disputes between the parties that this is not a matter to be decided summarily at all"

11.                  Since, this complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law, as such, voluminous evidence would be required to reach to any conclusion and the same is not possible before this Commission where proceedings are essentially summary in nature. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed being not maintainable before this Commission.  However, complainant is at liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate civil court, if so desires and may seek condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the time spent before this Commission. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 01.06.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President