DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 21/2019
Date of Institution : 28.02.2019
Date of Decision : 17.09.2019
Avtar Singh aged 23 years son of Amritpal Singh resident of Naival Road, Manisar Nagar, Barnala, District Barnala.
…Complainant Versus
M/s Sethi Telecom, Shop No. B-VI/178, Near SBOP Bank (ADB), Amarpura Mohalla, Purana Bazaar, Barnala District Barnala through Jaswinder Singh Prop./Partner/Authorized Person.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Varun Singla counsel for complainant.
Sh. Lokeshwar Sewak counsel for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President
2.Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Avtar Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against M/s Sethi Telecom (hereinafter referred as opposite party).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile set from opposite party on 16.8.2018 make VIVO model named Y71(i) of gold colour bearing IMEI No. 860606049246658 for Rs. 11,500/- vide invoice No. 954 dated 16.8.2018. It is further alleged that the complainant came to know lateron that Maximum retail price (inclusive of all taxes) of the mobile set was Rs. 9,990/-, but the opposite party overcharged. It is further alleged that the opposite party had procured signatures of complainant on some blank forms. The complainant visited the showroom of opposite party number of times and requested to refund Rs. 1,510/- but opposite party flatly refused to refund the same. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To refund overcharged amount of Rs. 1,510/-.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written version taking preliminary legal objections interalia on the grounds of not consumer, misconceived and unsustainable, no locus-standi or cause of action etc. On merits, the complaint of the complainant is denied. It is further submitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on installments and the opposite party clearly informed to him that an amount of Rs. 11,500/- will be charged instead of Rs. 9,990/- as printed on the box and in this regard an agreement has been executed between the parties on the same day. It is admitted that the complainant has paid Rs. 2,000/- in cash and remaining amount he agreed to pay in six equal installments of Rs. 1,583/- to opposite party. All other allegations of the complaint are denied by opposite party and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2, copy of mobile box Ex.C-3, copy of legal notice Ex.C-4, postal receipt Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
5. In order to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence copy of agreement Ex.O.P-1, affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Ex.O.P-2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. Written arguments filed by the parties have also been gone through.
7. The case of the opposite party is that the complainant is not entitled to any claim as he has concealed material facts from this Forum. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for opposite party that the complainant had purchased the above said mobile set from the opposite party on 16.8.2018 on installment basis and the price of the mobile set is Rs. 9,990/- as printed on the box, but the opposite party has charged Rs. 11,500/- instead of Rs. 9,990/- as per written agreement executed between the parties on the same day i.e. 16.8.2019. He further contended that the complainant after admitting the conditions signed the agreement and paid Rs. 2,000/- in cash to opposite party and remaining amount he agreed to pay in six equal installment of Rs. 1,583/-. It is further contended by the Ld. counsel for opposite party that the bill of Rs. 11,500/- of mobile in question has been issued on the request of the complainant as he had agreed to pay Rs. 11,500/- of the mobile set to the opposite party (as per agreement dated 16.8.2018). However, it is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant has paid the entire amount.
8. In support of its version, the opposite party has placed on record copy of agreement dated 16.8.2018 Ex.O.P-1 executed between the complainant and opposite party, wherein the complainant has deposed that he has purchased the above said mobile set for Rs. 11,500/- (MRP of Rs. 9,990/-) on 16.8.2018 on installments basis. Accordingly, he has paid Rs. 2,000/- in cash in advance and he agreed to pay the remaining amount to the opposite party in six equal installments of Rs. 1,583/-. It is important to mention here that the complainant has concealed this fact in his complaint that he has purchased the above said mobile set from the opposite party on installment basis and in this regard an agreement has been executed between them. We have gone through the copy of agreement Ex.O.P-2, which shows that the complainant after admitting the facts as mentioned has signed the agreement. Further, there is nothing on record from the side of complainant to rebut the Ex.O.P-1 placed on record by the opposite party.
"It is settled law that party who seeks to avail of the equitable jurisdiction and equitable relief, must come to the Court with clean hands. In other words, the party who makes false allegation does not come with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief."
Further, in the light of this legal position and the pleadings supported by documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that there is adequate evidence from the side of opposite party that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. We have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has approached the Forum with unclean hands and it is well settled law that who approached the Court with unclean hands by willfully suppressing certain relevant aspects, he does not deserve any relief.
9. The opposite party has relied upon the judgment of The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case titled S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, 2004 (7) SCC 166 held as under:-
"As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it."
This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is fully applicable to the present matter as in the present case also the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum.
10. In view of foregoing discussion and in view of the above citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, the present complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
17th Day of September, 2019
(Kuljit Singh)
President
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
