BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Harjinder Singh s/o S. Inder Singh r/o 1395, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                            V E R S U S

M/s Band Boy, Dyers, Dry Cleaners & Darners, Booth No.337, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh through the proprietor.

                                   ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:        SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL                      PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                 MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA          MEMBER

Argued by:       None for complainant.

OP exparte.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, on 8.10.2009 the complainant approached the OP for dry cleaning 3 sets of curtains for which the OP gave bill/receipt No.2776 dated 8.10.2009 giving the date of delivery as 13.10.2009 and charged Rs.1,000/-.  However, when on 13.10.2009 the complainant alongwith his wife went to take delivery the OP failed to deliver the curtains and told that the same would need to be dry cleaned again.  After two days he again visited the OP and while taking delivery found that the curtains were full of holes which fact was immediately brought to the notice of the OP.  It has been alleged that the silk made curtains were damaged by OP by washing the same in hot water instead of petrol and when he requested the OP to either pay Rs.9,950/- towards cost or to replace the same the OP threatened him. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.        Summons sent to OP were received with the report of refusal and since refusal is sufficient service, the OP was proceeded against exparte. 
3.        Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.
4.        We have perused the record. 
5.        The complainant claims to have purchased the silk curtains vide cash memo, copy of which is Annexure C-3 on 1.4.2009. According to him these were given for dry cleaning on 13.10.2009 even within six months of the purchase.  We cannot believe the contention of the complainant that new silk curtains would be got dry cleaned within six months of its purchase.
6.        Since the story put forward by the complainant about having purchased the silk curtains and sending them for dry cleaning before six months, it became necessary to call the proprietor of M/s Needle Craft, SCO No.207, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh from whom the said curtains were allegedly purchased by him. The story unfolded by Sanjay Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Needle Craft, aforesaid proved it beyond doubt that the complainant had never purchased any such silk curtains from the M/s Needle Craft vide Annexure C-3. The name of the complainant is not mentioned in the receipt (Annexure C-3) as a purchaser.  The place meant for the name of the purchaser is lying blank not only in Annexure C-3 but in so many other cash memos being issued by Sanjay Kumar.  Sanjay Kumar admitted in reply to the court question that the name of any person can be mentioned as a purchaser subsequently in the cash memos in which the name of the purchaser has not been mentioned earlier.  According to him since the column regarding the purchaser is lying blank, he cannot say to whom the goods were sold vide cash memos No.4607 or 4627 (Annexure C-3).  It shows that no such purchase is proved to have been made by the complainant but subsequently he took benefit of the illegalities being committed by Sanjay Kumar in not mentioning the name of the purchaser in the cash memos issued by him.
7.        According to Sanjay Kumar, he was adopting a policy not to mention the name of the purchasers in those cash memos in which the cash payment was being made at the time of the purchase of the goods.  This contention also appears to be an afterthought.  There are only 3 conditions mentioned on Annexure C-3 and there is no such condition if the name of the purchaser would not be mentioned in case the payment is made in cash.  Sanjay Kumar was, therefore, required to mention the name of the purchaser in the cash memos so that the same is not misutilized subsequently by any unscrupulous complainant in connivance with him.
8.        According to Sanjay Kumar Annexure C-3 has been issued by him from the bill book for the previous year.  A perusal of the original bill book shows that only 10 bills were  issued from this bill book by him till 31.3.2009 and thereafter he left 15 bills blank. Subsequently, the bills were issued from the same bill book w.e.f. 1.4.2009. Annexure C-3 is the second bill issued on that date.  There is no mention as to how many blank bills had been left vacant by Sanjay Kumar when he issued the first bill on 1.4.2009.  It appears even now any bill can be issued by him in the back date and he may contend that he left only 14 blank bills before he started issuing bills w.e.f. 1.4.2009.  When the facts can be manipulated by Sanjay Kumar, it falsifies the claim of the complainant. 
9.        Otherwise also, Sanjay Kumar is not a reliable person.  He is leaving some bills blank in the bill book without mentioning as to how many bills were being kept blank.  He did not start a new bill book w.e.f. 1.4.2009, though according to him new ledger and new cash book are to be started every financial year.  He did not mention as to what is the policy being adopted by him in leaving the bills blank from a bill book. He does not mention the name of the purchaser in the bill and it was being done by him under a self designed policy that a person who makes the cash payment his name would not be mentioned as purchaser in the bill book.  He could not produce any rules, regulations or instructions in this respect.  Needless to mention that the cash memos which are lying blank with respect to the name of the purchaser can be misutilized at any time.  When we asked Sanjay Kumar to produce the cash book to see whether he had not received the payments on the dates on which the cash memos were issued in which the name of the purchaser has been mentioned, he took adjournment to produce the same but did not appear on the next date.  He had to be summoned through warrants and when he appeared again, his stand totally changed.  According to him there is no cash book started by him for making entries of his income and expenditure.  He also changed his previous view of having entered the payments in the cash book on subsequent dates when the payments were allegedly received by him.  He also changed his view that the payment received subsequently is considered to be the income on the date on which the same was received, but contended that it would be considered as the income on the date on which he sold the goods.  He admitted that he could not tell to whom the goods vide receipts No.4607, 4627, 4632, 4637, 4642, 4651 were sold  because the name of the purchaser was not mentioned by him.  He also could not tell to whom the goods were sold vide Annexure C-3.  He knew this fact that if the name or address of a person or purchaser was not mentioned in the cash memo, then any name can be mentioned therein subsequently but even then he was keeping the column blank, may be with some ulterior motive.  Such a person, therefore, cannot be believed.
10. It is now clear from the statement of Sanjay Kumar that Annexure C-3 is not connected with the complainant. These curtains had not been purchased vide Annexure C-3 and, therefore, those could not have been given to the OP for dry cleaning. As mentioned earlier, silk curtains could not have been dry cleaned within six months. The complainant, therefore, manipulated Annexure C-3 to show that he had purchased the curtains for Rs.9,950/- and came to this Forum to claim the said amount.
11. Before filing the present complaint the complainant claimed to have served a notice (Annexure C-2) on the OP.  He, however, did not mention as to how this notice was sent by him or served on the OP.  He has not produced any postal receipt or acknowledgement of the notice having been sent to the OP.  Keeping in view the conduct of the complainant in filing a false complaint of having purchased the curtains vide Annexure C-3, we are of the opinion that no such notice was issued by him and he has just printed and attached this notice (Annexure C-2) to show that any such notice was issued by him.
12. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint. The complaint cannot be allowed simply because the  OP is exparte.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.