Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/46/2015

Govt.Model Senior Secondary School - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Nav Durga Steel Works - Opp.Party(s)

Om Singh Dhanda

04 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                       Complaint No. 46 of 2015.

                                                                                       Date of institution: 09.02.2015

                                                                                       Date of decision: 04.02.2016

Govt. Model Senior Secondary School, Mustafabad, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through Sh. Karnail Singh s/o Sh. Sunder Lal, former Principal, Presently posted as Principal Govt. Sen. Sec. School, Gumthala Rao, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. M/s Nav Durga Steel Works, Adhoya Road, Barara, District Ambala through its Proprietor Sh. Vinod Kumar. 
2. Vinod Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Nav Durga Steel Works, Adhoya Road, Barara, District Ambala.

                                                                                                                                            …Respondents.

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Om Singh Dhanda, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               OPs already ex-parte vide order dated 26.03.2015               

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Karnail Singh Former Principal has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 1,37,000/- which has been received by the OPs in excess of material supplied alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum and further to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant Govt. Model Senior Secondary School, Mustfabad, District Yamuna Nagar is a Govt. body being managed by its principal Sh. Karnail Singh who  was the principal of the school at that time who is now principal in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Gumthala Rao, District Yamuna Nagar. OP No.1 i.e. M/s Nav Durga Steel Works Adhoya Road, Barara is a proprietorship firm and Sh. Vinod Kumar OP No.2 is its proprietor. Sh. Karnail Singh previous principal had made order for some iron material and fabrications work to the OPs and as per the said order, OPs has issued a bill No. 2779 dated 02.06.2012 for a sum of Rs. 2,37,918/- for the said material work and the Ops have assured that the material will be supplied very soon. As per assurance of the OP No.2, the complainant made the payment of the bill amount i.e. Rs. 2,37,918/- through cheque No. 073242 dated 04.06.2012 drawn on PNB Mustfabad to the OPs. After some time the OPs have supplied some material/item as per order for about Rs. 1,00,000/- but the OPs have not supplied the entire item/material despite many requests and putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Since the OPs have received full and final payment of the order made by the complainant and the OPs have failed to supply the entire material and approximately of Rs. 1,37,000/- and also failed to refund the excess amount despite legal notice as well as oral requests. As such, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OPs despite service through registered post. Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.03.2015.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Karnail Singh Principal as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of bill dated 02.06.2012 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of letter dated 21.08.2014 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of letter dated 15.03.2014 as Annexure C-3, Copy of legal notice dated 29.08.2014 as Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     We have heard the counsel for the complainant and  have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance.

6.                     The only case of the complainant is that he was principal of the Government Model Senior Secondary School, Mustfabad and placed an order for some iron material and fabrications work to the OPs who issued a bill bearing No. 2779 dated 02.06.2012 for a sum of Rs. 2,37,918/- for the said work and material and the same was paid to the OPs vide cheque No. 073242 dated 04.06.2012 drawn on PNB Mustfabad but the OPs supplied some material for about Rs. 1,00,000/- and failed to supply the remaining entire items/material despite so many requests and legal notice.

7.                     From the perusal of pleadings, it reveals that it is a case of simply sale and purchase of the material as per order/agreement between the parties. No allegation has been leveled by the complainant in his complaint that there was any manufacturing defect or any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Further the complainant failed to file any copy of order or agreement executed with the OPs. Mere filing the copy of bill dated 02.06.2012 it cannot be presumed that the complainant has hired any services of the OPs. Moreover, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 09.02.2015 whereas the complainant has purchased the materials on 02.06.2012 which is evident from the Annexure C-1. So, in this way the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards letter dated 21.03.2014 and 15.03.2014, we are of the considered view that from these letters complainant cannot get any relief because as per these letters also it cannot prove that there was any deficiency in service or any manufacturing defect in the material. Rather it proves that there is a simply sale and purchase between the parties and to redress the grievances, if any, Civil Court is the best plate form. Hence, we find no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

 8.                    Resultantly we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 04.02.2016.

           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.