Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/20/9

KAMALJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ADDRITA ENGINEERING - Opp.Party(s)

VIKRANT SINGH

20 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

 

                                                Consumer Complaint No.09 of 2020

                                                Date of institution: 19.02.2020

                                                Date of Decision: 20.08.2021

 

 

Kamaljit Singh aged about 38 years, son of Sh. Kashmir Singh, resident of Ward No.12, Village Lodhipur PS and Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar 

…….Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Addrita Engineering works near DAV School Bikna Post Office Keshiakole Bikna, District Bankura (West Bengal) through its Prop. Chanchal Singh

                                                      ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                        Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Present:     Sh. Vikrant Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant

O.P. exparte

               
 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President and

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP for short) on the ground that the CC is running a business of preparation and sale of fullian Prasad in the name and style of Kamaljit  Enterprises at ward No.12, Village Lodhipur, PS and Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, for earning his livelihood. On the other hand, the OP is doing the work of manufacturing and fabrication. It is alleged that the CC had placed an order for one Murry machine worth Rs.56000/ on 10.4.2019. but the OP demanded a total amount of Rs.70,000/-, Rs.56000/- as cost of the machine and Rs.2000/- for packing charges and Rs.12000/- as transportation charges. The OP demanded 50% of the amount Rs.35000/- in advance from the CC. It was settled that the remaining Rs.35000/- will be paid once the machine is installed in the premises of the CC. It is alleged that the CC transferred the amount of Rs.40000/- on 12.4.2019 as desired by the OP. It is further alleged that the OP promised that the machine will be sent to the CC within ten days but despite several requests of the CC the machine was not sent. Vide whatsapp message dated 5.8.2019 the OP demanded Rs.18000/- more from the CC and promised to send the machine. But the amount was not sent.

2.   Thus, terming the act and conduct of the OP has illegal and unfair. The CC personally went to the OP in his office but was told that the machine demanded by the CC is not available and only a big size machine having price of Rs.150000/- + GST charges was available. On this, the CC after receiving the quotation from the OP agreed to pay Rs. 1,10,000/-  and gave the cheque dated 19.11.2019 in the name of his friend Sh. Nirmal Singh to the OP and also requested the OP to adjust the previous amount of Rs.40000/- in it. Thus, in total CC paid Rs.150000/- to the OP. It is further averred that one qualified engineer visited the premises of the CC at Lodhipur with new machine but did not install the machine and disclosed that more engineers were required for proper installation of the machine and promised to come back with more engineers. But till today no one has come to install the machine and lying in stationary manner in the premises of the CC. It is alleged that OP has refused to install the machine. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, CC has sought to refund an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- from the OP, Rs.3000/- per day for the loss of the business etc. He has further sought Rs.15,0000/- as cost of the machine, Rs.2,00,000/-  as compensation along with Rs.20000/- as litigation expenses.

Complaint of the CC is signed, verified and duly supported by an affidavit.

2.           Upon notice, the OP has chosen to remain ex-parte vide order dated 11.12.2020.

3.           The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence. 

4.           We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the file, carefully and minutely.

5.           Admittedly, the OP has not come forward and has contested the claim of the CC but we are of the view that from the perusal of the complaint and the documents attached with the complaint, it appears to be a false and fabricated matter. It appears that the CC has not approached the Consumer Commission with clean hands. There is no evidence on the file except the payment of Rs.40000/- given by the CC to the OP.  It is mentioned in the complaint itself that the machine worth Rs.150000/- of the OP is lying in the premises of the CC. It is possible that CC is not paying the balance amount to the OP and has rather kept his machine forcibly. CC has mentioned in his affidavit that an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was paid to the OP through his one friend Nirmal Singh. Surprisingly, no affidavit of Nirmal Singh whose where about are mentioned in the complaint is attached with the complaint. There is no cogent evidence to prove that even Rs.1,10,000/- have gone to OP through the alleged friend of the CC known as Nirmal Singh. We have also perused the legal notice dated 6.6.2019 sent by the CC through his Advocate. There is no mentioning of any payment of Rs.1,10,000/- by cheque through his friend namely Nirmal Singh to the OP. It is important to mention here that the complaint was filed in this Commission on 19.2.2020 and there is no record on the file that the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was sent by cheque. The facts and the allegations of the CC appears to be doubtful. There is no explanation that why the CC had paid the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- through his friend who has not even bothered to file his affidavit in favour of the CC.

6.           In the absence of the proper cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence from the side of the CC, we are not inclined to give any relief to the CC since the entire complaint and evidence submitted by the CC appears to be doubtful. It appears that the complaint has been filed by the CC with malafide intention. Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed. However, no order as to cost. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

•  

August 20, 2021

                                                                   (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                             President                                 

(Capt. Y.S. Matta)

•