Complainant Punam Singh has claimed Rs. 1,24,000/- with 18% interest P.A. from the date of payment with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 10000/-.

2                 The brief case of the complainant is that on 17.01.2013 the complainant placed an order for purchase of Neckless for Rs. 92,750/- out of which Rs. 60000/- in cash was paid to the O.P. vide receipt No. 631 dt. 17.01.2013. But the to purchase another gold chain on 15.02.13 she placed order for total cost of Rs. 31,950/- out of which 30,000/- was paid vide receipt no. 477 dt. 15.02.2013. The O.P. asked the complainant that the ornament would be delivered on payment of entire amount.

          On 10.11.2014  complainant paid Rs. 24,000/- to O.P. but the O.P. further asked payment of Rs. 10,000/- which was paid on 24.12.2014 but the O.P. had not given any receipt of these two  payments. The O.P. used to evade the delivery of ornaments on one pretext and another.

          On 2304.2015 at 06:00P.M. the complainant went to the shop of O.P. and demanded her ornaments. Again O.P. tried to give false assurance. Thereafter, the complainant told the O,.P. she would report the matter to O.P. then O.P. abused, misbehaved and assaulted her.

          The complainant reported the matter to Police as registered B.S. City P.S. Case No. 240/2015    dt. 28.04.15 against the O.P. Thus, it is clear the O.P. is negligent and deficiency in his services. The cause of action arose on 17.01.13, 15.02.13, 120.11.2014, 24.12.2014 and on 23.04.2015 and hence this case has been filed.

3       Complainant has field following Anx in support of case:-

Anx-1 and ½ Copy of the  two receipts dt. 17.01.2013 and 15.02.2013

Anx-2 and 2/1 Copy of the FIR of B.S.City P.S.Case No. 240/2015 and charge sheet.

Anx-3-Copy of the charge sheet of P.S. Case No. 228/2015 in which O.P. is the informant.

4       O.P. M/s Maa Chandrakria Jewellers through Proprietor Badri Prasad Verma appeared and filed W.S. It is submitted that O.P,. denied all the allegations and complaint is not maintainable since B.S. City P.S. Case No. 240./15 ha been filed by the complaint which is pending the Court.

          It is further submitted the O.P. is only a Karigar and manufacturers the ornaments. It is stated that complainant never paid Rs. 60000/- and receipt filed false and fabricated because it does not bear signature of the O.P.    It is admitted he sold gold chain for Rs. 31950/- but the complainant paid only Rs. 30000/-.

          It is further submitted on 25.04.15 the complainant along with the family member entered in the shop of the O.P. and abused and assaulted and damaged articles of the shop and taken away Rs. 30000/- in cash and gold ornaments for which the O.P. has filed B.S.P.S. Case No. 228/15. It is also submitted that since criminal case has been field by complainant, hence at the same time this complaint cannot be entertained and therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

5       O.P.  has filed the following Anx in support of the contentions.

Anx-A- copy of the Order sheet of Learner C.J.M. Bokaro dt. 17.10.15

Anx-B and B/1-Copy of the FIR B.S.City P.S. Case No. 240/15 (Anx-2) and the charge sheet(Anx-2/1).

Anx-C and C/1- Copy of the receipts (Anx-1 and 1/1).                         

F I N D I N G S

6       Perused the record and the complaint petition we hold complainant is a consumer and the dispute is related to consumer dispute.

7       On perusal of the W.S. the O.P. admitted the payment of Anx-1/1 but denied the payment of Rs. 60000/- of Anx-1, on the ground it does bear the signature of the O.P. and it is false and fabricated. On bare perusal of the Anx-1 Anx-1/1 the writing appears to be same and on Anx-1 it has been mentioned deposit of Rs. 60000/- so we do not found force in the contention of the O.P. that it is false and fabricated. Anx-1 bears the signature of the complainant and although O.P. has not signed it but the writing over Anx-1 And 1/1 are the same and therefore, Anx-1 cannot be treated as false and fabricated.

          However, it is admitted by the complainant herself that payment of Rs. 24000/- and Rs. 10000/- on 10.11.14 no receipt was issued by the O.P. and there is no prove field by the complainant to sustain the allegation of the payment.

7       The contention of the O.P. that since a criminal case has been field which pending this complaint cannot be entertained is wrong in view of the provision mentioned in section 3 of the C.P. Act which says “the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of the any other law for the time being in force”. Therefore, the Anx- 2 and 2/1 does not create any bar for maintainability of this complaint.

8       It is apparent on the face of the record, that the complainant has purchased the neckless and the gold chain for which she had paid Rs. 60000/- and Rs. 30000/- but the O.P. had not given the ornaments so placed on order. Therefore, the O.P. is liable for deficiency in service.

9       Thus, we hold the main claim of the complainant is allowed partly to the extent of Rs. 90000/- along with the compensation and litigation cost.

10     In the result, the O.P. M/s Maa Chamdrika Jewelers through Prop. Of Badri Prasad Verma is directed to pay Rs. 60,000/- with interest of 8%  per annum since 17.01.2013 and to pay Rs. 30,000/- with interest of 8% per annum since 15.02.2013.

O.P. is    further directed to pay Rs. compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-.

          All the payment must be paid within 60 days of this order, failing which the rate of interest on the main claim will be enhanced to 15% till the realization.