District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.381/2021.
Date of Institution: 03.08.2021.
Date of Order: 24.01.2023.
Narender Singh (Adhar No. 4034 7073 5784) S/o Shri Durg Singh, Resident of AF 8320 E, Apna Ghar Society, Sector-23, Faridabad, Distt. Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. Goyal Steel, Plot No. 103, Sector-24, Indira Estate, Faridabad – 121005, through Proprietor Ram Kumar
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Bhisham Narayan, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. R.S.Jhakar, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant, believing the words of the opposite party had purchased 10971.5 kg. of steel raw material D-2 Mb. of Rs.4,88,537.70 including the GST. The complainant had paid the entire payment to the opposite parties through RTGS on the same day and only after the payment of the entire payment, the opposite party had delivered the above mentioned raw material to the complainant and confirmed invoice No. 15442 dated 18.03.2021 but the defendant did not give the certificate of the above sold goods even after repeated demands of the complainant . The complainant after checking the goods contacted the defendant and told all the things to the defendant and told the defendant that instead of D-2 quality, they had sold him goods of inferior quality and he had paid for D 2 quality. The complainant told the defendant that he had suffered a huge financial loss of Rs.48,50,000/- due to the dyes made from the inferior quality goods sold to him by them. But the opposite party flatly refused to do so. The complainant sent legal notice dated 01.07.2021 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) Defendant took payment for D-2 goods from the complainant due to selling goods of inferior quality instead of the goods, the opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.48,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 40,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint. There was transaction between M/s. Sri Radhey Krishna Industries and the answering opposite party. There was transaction between the opposite party and M/s. Sri Radhey Krishna Industries and the same was business dealing and the same did not cover under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– Goyal Steel with the prayer to: a) Defendant took payment for D-2 goods from the complainant due to selling goods of inferior quality instead of the goods, the opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.48,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 40,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Narender Singh, Ex.C-1 - Statement between 01.03.2021 and 31.03.2021 for A/c. No. 920020062974841, Ex.C-2 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-3 – Test report, Ex.C-4 – legal notice, Ex.C-5 – postal receipt,, Mark-A – letter dated 01.07.2021,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.DW-1/A – affidavit of Ram Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Goyal Steel, Plot No. 103, Sector-24, Indira Estate Faridabad, Ex.D-1 – reply to legal notice, Ex.D-2 – Test Certification.
6. There are four issues in this complaint.
a) The complaint is not filed by the proper person.
The invoice of the material is in the name of Radhey Krishna Industries and the complaint was filed by Narender Singh in his personal capacity.
b. Commercial.
As per the contents of the complaint and reply given by the opposite party both are commercial entity transaction for the business purpose,.
c. Expert Report
As per expert report vide Ex.C-3 at the bottom of the report that “This report can not used as an evidence in a court of law without the written approval of the lab.”
4. Defective report submitted by the Expert..
No notice was given to the complainant for the passing of the material.
7. During the course of arguments, counsel for the opposite party has given 5 samples of the invoice of material of the same kind which are given as under:
Sl.No .Invoice & date Item Rate
i) GS/22-23/11311 Alloy Steel Bar and Round 72283024 D2 Rs.250/- per dt 23.11.22 D2 kg.
ii) GS/22-23/13534 Alloy Steel Bar, Round & Square Rs.168/- per
04.01.2023 72284000 D2- Kg.
iii) GS/22-23/13998 Alloy Steel Bar, Round & Square Rs.200/- per 12.1.2023 72284000 D2 KNL- kg.
iv) GS/22-23/13891 Alloy Steel Bar, Round & Square Rs.168/- per 10.01.23 72284000 D2- Kg
.
v) GS/22-23/13891 Alloy Steel Bar, Round & Square Rs.245/- per
10.01.2023 7228400 00 D2- kg.
vi) 15442 /18.3.21 Alloy Seeel Bar & Rod Rs.210/- per
D2 CR12 MOV
8. As per invoice No. 15442 dated 18.3.2021 vide Ex. C2 the
material i.e. Alloy Steel Bar & Rod sold by the opposite party is on different price.
Counsel for the opposite party has placed on reliance in case titled Shrikant G. Mantri Versus Punjab National Bank in Civil Appeal No. 11397 of 2016 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 22.02.2022.
Ratio of the above authority is applicable to the facts of the present case.
9
. Keeping in view of the above submissions, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 24.01.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
