DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/81/2021

Date of Institution : 24.03.2021

Date of Decision : 11.10.2023

Rakesh Kumar son of Jagan Nath resident of House No. B/III/453, Janda Wala Road, Barnala.  …Complainant

Versus

1. Mr. Som Pal Singh @ Soma resident of Backside Prem Pardhan Market, Near Suvidha Centre, Bus Stand Road, Barnala. 

2. Deepak Sharma resident of Backside Prem Pardhan Market, Near Suvidha Centre, Bus Stand Road, Barnala and Court Chowk, Barnala.

3. Parmod Singla, Private Finance Company, Bhadaur. 

…Opposite Parties.

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

Present: Sh. DR Jindal Adv counsel for complainant with Sh. Rakesh Kumar complainant.

Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 exparte.

Sh. Himanshu Garg Adv counsel for opposite party No. 3. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The complainant Rakesh Kumar filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against Som Pal Singh alias Soma and others.  (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that he purchased four batteries of Adwin Company on credit basis for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- out of which Rs. 9,000/- was deducted in lieu of old batteries and Rs. 1,000/- was the cost of documents, so Rs. 27,000/- was the loan amount out of which Rs. 900/- was given in cash on 10.3.2020 as expenditure of file, Rs. 2,700/- was paid on 18.2.2020 vide receipt. Rs. 1,150/- were paid on 2.3.2020 against receipt. Rs. 5,600/- were paid to Parmod Singla opposite party No. 3 against receipt. In this way total Rs. 10,350/- were paid to the opposite parties. In this way the opposite parties received Rs. 3,550/- in addition from the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite parties by including the interest the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- was turned into loan amount of Rs. 22,500/- and which was agreed to be returned within six months at the monthly installment of Rs. 3,750/-. The complainant returned two installments of Rs. 3,750/- each total Rs. 7,500/- on 10.3.2020, Rs. 4,050/- against receipt and another installment was paid in part and was fully paid on 15.8.2020 against receipt. Thereafter, a compromise dated 15.8.2020 was effected between the complainant and opposite party No. 1 Som Pal and only four installments of Rs. 3,750/- each total Rs. 15,000/- was due towards the complainant of the opposite parties. At the time of purchase the opposite party No. 1 issued hand written writing regarding the purchase of batteries and refused to issued the original bills to the complainant. At that time the opposite party No. 3 had got signatures of the complainant on some blank papers, pronotes and on revenue stamps, two blank cheques of Central bank of India and also obtained Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and three photos and now threatening the complainant to misuse the said documents. 

3. It is further alleged that complainant was returning the said amount in monthly installments of Rs. 3,750/- per month and the payment of the same was made in the months of 10.3.2020 and in July 2020. On 15.8.2020 the opposite parties snatched the e-rickshaw of the complainant from his son and opposite parties No. 1 and 2 removed the said four batteries from the e-rickshaw and fixed old batteries in the said rickshaw due to which e-rickshaw did not move on which caused loss of Rs. 1,500/- to the complainant. On 28.9.2020 the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 snatched the e-rickshaw from Lovejit Singh and Shalu Rani daughter of the complainant while they were coming to the house of the complainant alongwith Rs. 25,000/- in cash from Shalu Rani and removed the batteries and left the e-rickshaw to the house of the complainant which caused huge loss to the complainant. 

4. It is further alleged that due to lock down period the remaining installments could not be deposited with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 by the complainant. The complainant had parked the e-rickshaw in the workshop of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to change the new batteries in place of old batteries. The act of opposite parties is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Legal notice was also served upon the opposite parties but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of damage i.e. on account of mental tension and agony. 

2) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

3) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

5. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 not appeared before this Commission despite service so the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.6.2021. 

6. The opposite party No. 3 filed written version taking legal objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and complainant suppressed material facts from this Commission. The complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. The intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this case which requires examining the witnesses and procedure under Consumer Protection Act is summary in nature and complainant if so advised to file a civil suit seeking the alleged relief. The complainant is not a consumer of opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 not running any business in the name of M/s Private Finance Company, Bhadaur. 

7. On merits, it is denied that on 28.9.2020 the opposite party No. 3 snatched the E-rickshaw from Lovejit Singh and Shalu Rani daughter of the complainant. The answering opposite party has no concern with the said incident. The complainant is not entitled to any relief against the opposite party No. 3. Lastly, the opposite party No. 3 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

8. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Shallu Rani Ex.C-2, copy of order dated 12.10.2020 Ex.C-3, receipt Ex.C-4, copy of receipt Ex.C-5, receipts Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9, copy of razinama Ex.C-10, copy of legal notice Ex.C-11, postal receipts Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence. 

9. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Parmod Singla Ex.OP-3/1, copy of acknowledgment of Registration of Firms Ex.OP-3/2, copy of Form A Ex.OP-3/3 and closed the evidence. 

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the appearing parties. 

11. The first submission of the complainant in the present complaint is that he purchased four batteries of Adwin Company from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- but he has not produced any bill or any other document in this regard. Secondly, he submitted in his complaint that he paid the amount of Rs. 10,350/- to the opposite parties on different dates but he also failed to produce any valid receipt in this regard. The alleged receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-9 are not valid receipts as per law as these all are only hand written documents and not valid receipts. Further, all these alleged receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-9 are not having any stamp or signatures of any of the opposite parties and these receipts are not admissible as evidence. In this way, the complainant has miserably failed to prove on the record that he paid any amount to the opposite parties. On the other hand, Parmod Singla opposite party No. 3 has alleged that he is not running any business in the name of “M/s Private Finance Company, Bhadaur.” Rather opposite party No. 3 is running the firm in partnership namely Ganga Finance Company, Barnala Road, VPO Bhadaur, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala as per Ex.OP-3/2 and Ex.OP-3/3.

12. As a result of the above discussion, the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to its records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        11th Day of October 2023

 

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member