BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.247/13.

Date of instt.: 11.11.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 21.09.2015.

Surjeet Singh S/o Jai Singh R/o Village Taragarh, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. M/s. Jagdamba Mills Store, Kaithal through its Prop. Suresh, Jind Road, Kaithal under Railway Bridge, Kaithal.

2. Insurance Company, if any, particulars to be disclosed by the opposite party No.1. 

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. H.S.Nain, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. A.K.Nirwani, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased 560 feet pipe of the size of 10 inch diameter and 160 feet pipe of diameter of 6 inch along with other necessary material from Op No.1 against the guarantee of one year and total amount of the pipe and other material comes to Rs.1,74,45/-, which was paid by the complainant to Op No.1.  It is further alleged that the complainant got the electric connection in the month of May or June, 2013 and started planting paddy crops in the month of first week of July, 2013.  It is further alleged that the tubewell did not function due to break of the plastic pipe in the bore well and the complainant could not plant paddy crops due to non-functioning of tubewell.  It is further alleged that the complainant contacted the Op No.1 in the first week of July, 2013 but the Op No.1 did not attend the complainant and refused to replace the damaged/broken pipe and the complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.1,74,455/-.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that in the notice dt. 26.08.2013 the complainant has alleged that Suresh Kumar, who has been shown to be proprietor of Op No.1 has absolutely no concern whatsoever with the Op No.1 firm, he (Suresh Kumar) is neither the proprietor nor owner or partner of Op No.1.  It is further stated that the complainant has purchased 400 feet pipe of 9½ diameter, whereas in para No.3 of the complaint, he has alleged that he has purchased 600 feet pipe out of which 560 feet pipe was of 10 inches and 160 feet pipe was of 6 inches and the total length of these pipes comes to 720 feet, this itself proves that the false complaint has been filed by the complainant.  The complainant never purchased any pipe from the Op No.1.  The alleged estimate produced by the complainant is false and bogus.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A and closed evidence on 28.05.2015.  On the other hand, the Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed evidence on 28.05.2015.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.  

5.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant purchased 400 feet pipe of the size of 9½ inch diameter and 160 feet pipe of diameter of 6 inch along with other necessary material for sum of Rs.1,74,455/- from Op No.1 against the guarantee of one year.  He further argued that the Op has not issued any bill and only issued an estimate, the photo-copy of the same is Ex.C1.  He also argued that the complainant in the presence of one Ram Mehar has purchased the pipes and other articles and made the payment of Rs.1,74,455/- to the Op.  He further argued that the tubewell did not function due to break of the plastic pipe in the bore well and the complainant could not plant paddy crops due to non-functioning of tubewell.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 argued that Suresh Kumar, who has shown as proprietor of M/s. Jagdamba Mill Store, Kaithal is neither the proprietor nor the owner or partner of the said firm.  He further argued that the complainant never purchased the alleged pipe from the Op No.1 nor any bill has been issued by said Suresh Kumar.  He also argued that the alleged estimate Ex.C1 has not been issued by the said Suresh Kumar and neither the same bears any date nor the signatures of any person.  He also argued that the allegations leveled in the notice and the complaint are contradictory.      

6.     From the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available on the file and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, we found that the complainant has failed to produce any bill or documentary evidence which could prove that the complainant had purchased the plastic pipes along with other necessary material from the Op No.1.  The complainant only produced an estimate Ex.C1 on the file which neither bears the date nor the signatures of any person nor the name of any firm.  Mere allegations are not sufficient, those are necessary to be proved by cogent evidence.  Thus, we are of the considered view that there are the intricate questions of law and facts, which require elaborate evidence and the same is not possible in this time-bound proceedings.  In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court and in the case reported as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB 1998(1) CPC page 150, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

7.     In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.21.09.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.