BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.453 of 2015

Date of Instt. 16.10.2015

Date of Decision: 11.04.2018

Jyoti Kamal son of Gulshan Kamal, resident of 62-R, A Block, Model House, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

M/s Saluja Sanitations, Guru Ravidass Market, Near Ravidass Chowk, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Gulshan Kamal, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Ram Chhabra, Adv Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant has purchased the goods from the OP as per details mentioned in the unsigned chit issued by the OP to the complainant for payment in place of a regular bill. The OP inspite of insisting of the complainant did not issue a bill, which is required by law. The unsigned chit accompanying the goods was sent by the OP to the complainant's residence, which was duly received by the complainant alongwith the goods. The complainant noticed a large difference between the MRP mentioned on the boxes containing the tiles and the slip sent by the OP and payment charged for the goods. The complainant approached the OP for the refund of the extra amount charged than legally, but the OP did not listen to the complainant. The complainant again approached the OP after two days and requested for the return of the extra amount charged from the complainant on the pretext of price of the said goods i.e. Rs.31,000/-. The OP has charged excess price, which is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice for refund of the excess price of Rs.31,000/-, but all in vain, which give rise to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.31,000/- as price of the goods, to the complainant.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against the OP. The complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of the 'Consumer Protection Act'. No such goods were ever purchased by the complainant from the answering OP. The OP has not issued any alleged slip to the complainant. The alleged slip is nothing, but is a result of fraud. Hence, the complaint is devoid of any merits, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed and further averred that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands rather he has suppressed the material facts from the Forum and even this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint because the issue involved in this case does not come within the preview of this Forum. On merits, the entire facts as elaborated in the complaint are categorically denied and further stated that the OP has never sold any alleged goods (Tiles), to the complainant and as such, the instant complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents i.e. Slips Mark C-1/A to Mark C-1/C and some other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and in additional evidence, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Tara Chand as Ex.C/B and photocopy of Voter Card of Tara Chand as Mark 11/A and closed the evidence.

4. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6. In order to establish the charges as leveled in the complaint, the complainant has brought on the file his own affidavit Ex.CA as well as affidavit of one Tara Chand Ex.CB, both the witnesses categorically deposed that the complainant purchased tiles from the OP and OP charged excess price of the said tiles as described on the box of packing, photostat copy of the same is available on the file Ex.C-4 and even the complainant served a legal notice to the OP and copy of the same is produced on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-2 and its postal receipt is Ex.C-3 and in order to prove that the said legal notice was delivered to the OP, complainant got a certified copy from the Postal Department, which is Ex.C-9 and register maintained by the Postal Department is Ex.C-10 and further the complainant made much stress on the document i.e. Chit Ex.C-1, which is without signature of any person or it is also not on a printed form and further complainant also produced some Chits Mark C-1/A to Mark C-1/C. We have gone through the entire record/documents produced on the file by the complainant and find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish on the file that he is a consumer of the OP being reason, if the complainant purchased some tiles from the OP, then it is required to get a proper bill from the OP, prior to making a payment, if pakka bill is not issued by the OP, then the complainant can refuse to make the payment of the price of said goods, but for the best known reason, the complainant did not follow the proper procedure and in the absence of any proper bill, we cannot assume that the complainant is a consumer/purchaser, if so then, the complainant has no right to claim any relief from the OP because the OP itself categorically denied in the written reply as well as in its affidavit Ex.OPA that the OP never sold the said tiles to the complainant nor the alleged chit was ever issued to the complainant.

7. Furthermore, if the chit was virtually having a handwriting of the OP, then the complainant can get compared the handwriting on the chit with the admitted handwriting of the OP, but the complainant has not follow this procedure. So, in the absence of any specific and convincing evidence, we cannot accept the version of the complainant that he has purchased the tiles from the OP because there is no bill and no other acceptable evidence. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the complaint of the complainant fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

11.04.2018 Member President