The complainant Som Nath Jindal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party M/s Madhwa Printers (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).
Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 29.6.2018, he approached opposite party for printing of tax invoices in name of M/s M.D.P. Son as firm. Opposite party is sole Prop. Opposite party quoted Rs.600/- for 4 books of tax invoices and assured to deliver the order on Monday 2nd July, 2018. The complainant paid Rs.300/- in cash as advance. The balance was to be paid on delivery of printed invoices.
It is alleged that at time of visit, there was power cut due to some line repair work in progress. Opposite party advised the complainant to visit in the evening for viewing/approval of invoice format. The complainant in the evening of 29.6.2018, visited opposite party. The computer operator showed the complainant draft of invoice on computer. The complainant approved it. The complainant also decided to get 5 books of vouchers printed for which opposite party quoted Rs.350/-. He agreed to pay the same and placed the order.
It is further alleged that when the complainant reached home, he received e-mail from opposite party attaching draft copy of tax invoice to be printed. He found spellings of Prop. written as Porp. He immediately called opposite party and informed it regarding spellings mistake. Opposite party assured to do the necessary correction. It also replied through e-mail. In the evening of 2.7.2018, the complainant went to opposite party for taking delivery of order, but it advised him to come next day as order was not ready. On next day i.e. 3.7.2018, he went to collect the order, but opposite party informed that due to mistake, printing order could not be given and he was asked to come next day. On 4.7.2018, he contacted opposite party on phone, but opposite party did not give any satisfactory reply, but it promised to call back. The complainant got no response. He again called opposite party at 17:39, but no status was informed.
It is further alleged that the complainant personally went to opposite party to know the status. Opposite party informed the complainant that order is ready and delivered 4 books of invoice and 5 books of vouchers. The complainant paid Rs.650/- in cash to opposite party and requested it to issue bill/invoice, but opposite party refused to issue invoice and demanded additional payment @18% on pretext of GST, although, there was no such condition. When the complainant was to leave, he noticed that printing of vouchers was O.K, but desired correction in spellings of Prop. in invoice has not been carried out. He immediately pointed out this mistake to opposite party. Opposite party asked the complainant to take away the books and make corrections by hand, but he did not agree to. Opposite party suggested to paste corrective slips on invoice to which the complainant gave his consent. Opposite party further desired 2-3 days to do the needful. The complainant asked to deliver one book on very next day and rest may be delivered after 2-3 days. Opposite party agreed and promised to deliver one book with necessary corrections to the complainant on next day. The complainant took delivery of vouchers leaving invoice books with opposite party for making corrections.
It is further alleged that on 5.7.2018, the complainant went to collect one corrected invoice book, but opposite party informed him that the job could not be done and advised him to come next day. On 6.7.2018, he could not visit to collect the invoice book due to some urgent work. On 7.7.2018, he visited opposite party to collect the invoice book, but opposite party again informed him that job could not be done. He requested opposite party to refund the money of Rs.600/- as he cannot wait further, opposite party not ready to refund the money. He contacted another local printers and placed order for 5 invoice books for Rs.750/-. Opposite party violated the conditions of services. It amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant has prayed for cost of Rs.25,000/- alongwith refund of Rs.600/- with interest @12% p.a. Hence, this complaint.
Upon notice, opposite party appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing its written version. In its written version, opposite party has raised the preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum.
As per opposite party, that complainant approached it on 29.6.2018 for printing of tax invoices in the name of M/S M.D.P. Son. Opposite party had shown the draft of invoice on computer and complainant approved it. Opposite party quoted Rs.600/- for 4 books of tax invoices. The complainant agreed and paid Rs.300/- in advance. He asked opposite party to send the print to him on his e-mail. He placed the order to print 4 books of invoice as per format shown to him and placed the order to get 5 books of voucher @ 350/-. Opposite party started printing the same, but on same day in the evening, the complainant made call to opposite party and told that there is mistake in the spelling of Prop. as it was written as Porp.
It is further pleaded that opposite party intimated the complainant that it has already printed all the invoices as per instruction and order. It was also intimated that the correction will be done in vouchers, which are yet to be printed and opposite party will paste corrective slips on invoices. The complainant agreed to the same. He asked opposite party that he is in urgent need of books of invoice. He asked opposite party for one book to be provided to him within a day and remaining will be delivered after a week after pasting the corrective slips. He was asked next day that he can collect the five books of vouchers and one book of corrected invoice (after pasting the corrective slips). He approached the shop of opposite party and collected 5 books of vouchers and one book of invoice. He agreed to collect the remaining books after a week and assured opposite party that he will make the full and final payment after collecting the remaining books. After a week, opposite party informed the complainant that he can collect the remaining books after paying the remaining amount. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party and refused to pay the remaining amount and threatened to file the case. He demanded remaining books, but he refused to make remaining amount.
Further preliminary objections are that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint. The complaint has been filed only to injure the goodwill and reputation of opposite party. The complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. No cause-of-action or locus-standi has arisen to file this complaint. The complainant is not 'consumer' as defined U/s 2(1)(d) of 'Act'. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is not properly verified. It is liable to be dismissed with cost to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. It has been filed only to avoid the remaining payment
On merits, opposite party has controverted all the material averments and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Parties were asked to produce the evidence.
In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of receipt, (Ex.C1); photocopy of e-mail, (Ex.C2); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C3); his affidavit dated 10.8.2018, (Ex.C4) and submitted written arguments.
To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Hans Raj dated 3.10.2018, (Ex.OP1/1).
We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for opposite party and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by the complainant.
Parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.
We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.
From the pleadings of parties and evidence brought on record, factual position emerges as under:-
i) The complainant placed order for printing of 4 books of tax invoice on 29.6.2018;
ii) Amount settled was Rs.600/-;
iii) The complainant paid Rs.300/- in advance.
On 4.7.2018, the complainant visited opposite party after earlier alleged visits on 2nd and 3rd July 2018. 4 invoice books and 5 vouchers books were ready. The complainant noticed printing mistake in the invoice books as Porp. was printed instead of Prop. on the title head of tax invoice. Opposite party offered to correct this mistake by pasting correction slip and complainant agreed to same. Again, on 5th and then on 7th July 2018, the complainant visited opposite party to collect the invoice books, but as per complainant, same were not ready. As such, he requested for refund of Rs.600/-. Therefore, from this factual position, only grouse of the complainant is that books were not ready till 7th July 2018 as he was in urgent need of books. To corroborate this fact, the complainant has produced on record copy of bill, (Ex.C3) to prove that he got the same work done from other printers i.e. Mamta Printing Press, Bathinda on 9.7.2018 on payment of Rs.750/-.
The version of opposite party is that the complainant collected 5 books of voucher and one book of invoice. The complainant agreed to collect the remaining books after week with the correction slips. He has not admitted receipt of one book also.
Anyway the main grouse of the complainant is that order was not ready up to 7th July 2018. There is nothing on record to prove that opposite party agreed to supply the order within any prescribed period. There is also nothing to prove that these tax invoice books were urgently required by the complainant.
Keeping in view the nature of spelling mistake, it can also be inferred that in case of urgency, the complainant could have used the tax invoice even without correction slips or by making this correction with hand or even without making this correction. The correction was of minor in nature.
The complainant has pleaded that he has paid the remaining amount of Rs.300/-, but there is nothing on record to prove this payment also. He has received receipt for advance payment of Rs.300/-. Therefore, it was also expected that the complainant will make the payment against receipt only. Admittedly, order was ready. The complainant has also admitted that opposite party offered invoice books, but without correction slips. In these circumstances, the complainant has agitated the petty matter before this Forum, which could have been easily settled between the parties.
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is disposed of with directions to opposite party to deliver the books to the complainant with correction slips as and when the complainant approaches to collect the same.
Parties are left to bear their own cost.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced:-
29-11-2018 (M.P Singh Pahwa)
President
(Jarnail Singh)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
