DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.693 of 2014
Date of institution: 15.12.2014 Date of decision : 16.09.2020
Balwinder Singh through Sh. Jaswant Singh, resident of Village Sher Khan Wala, District Ferozepur.
…….Complainant
Versus
M/s. World Class Enterprises (Regn.No.3968), SCO-43, IInd Floor, Phase-IX, Mohali through Mrs. Shalini Kapoor.
2nd Address:
Shalini Kapoor d/o Atma Ram, r/o 16 CD YAL Subvilla, Tehsil Dharmshala, District Kangra (H.P.)
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: None for the complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP’ for short), on the ground that CC is a consumer of the OP and in the month of March, 2011 CC approached the office of OP in order to apply for visa alongwith work permit for going abroad. However, the name of the country is not mentioned. It is alleged that OP had received an amount to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- “in cash” from the CC and assured the CC that in case of rejection of visa, the said amount will be refunded to the CC and in this regard an undertaking was given by the OP in writing to the CC. It is further alleged that the OP issued two cheques to the CC bearing No.132079 dated nil of Rs.1.00 lakh and another cheque bearing No.134384 dated 05.11.2012 of Bank of India, Mohali in favour of the CC. It is alleged that neither the OP could arrange the visa nor refunded the amount to the CC. Both the cheques were dishonoured by the bank. It is alleged that the OP had been giving false promises to refund the amount to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- to the CC but of no use.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought the following relief:
(a) refund of Rs.2,60,000/- from the OP alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
(b) the CC has sought Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
Complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. The OP has chosen to remain ex-parte and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.01.2018 of this Commission.
3. The CC in support of his complaint tendered in evidence various documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and thereafter closed his evidence.
4. Since the entire evidence of the CC is on the file and the OP is already ex-parte, we feel that no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties if the present complaint is decided on merits. Otherwise also the present Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act which is enacted to provide speedy justice to the parties. Further the present grievance of the CC appears to be an old one and the matter pertains to the year 2014.
5. It is important to mention here that CC has relied upon one document Ex.C-1, copy of FIR which was lodged by Shri Amrinder Singh son of Pirthi Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that the name of the CC does not figure in the FIR. This shows that CC never approached the police at any point of time. The CC has further relied on documents Ex.C-2 to C-5 through which he had paid an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- in total to the OP. The CC has annexed another document Ex.C-6 which proves that CC again paid Rs.20,000/- in cash on 14.03.2011. The CC has further submitted another document Ex.C-7 which shows payment of Rs.80,000/- to the OP. It is important to mention here that on this document it is specifically written that the whole amount will be refundable in case any problem occurs in between the processing time which was 6 to 8 months. The CC has further submitted document Ex.C-8 signed by one Ranveer Singh, which appears to be a tampered document. Moreover, there is nothing in the complaint that who is this Ranveer Singh and how this document is connected with the contents of the present complaint filed by the CC and how Ranveer Singh has originated in the present complaint. It appears that this document was fraudulently prepared by the CC and by not mentioning anything about Ranveer Singh in the complaint shows, that CC has not approached the Commission with clean hands. It is mentioned in this document Ex C-8 that total payment is Rs.2,60,000/-. It is further mentioned in Ex.C-8 that if this amount is not refunded, then Ranveer Singh will pay double the amount. There is nothing on the record that who prevented the CC for not making Ranveer Singh as one of the OPs or what is the role of Ranveer Singh. Another receipt Ex.C-9 shows receiving of amount of Rs.30,000/- to the OP. Further the CC has submitted two cheques of Rs.1.00 lakh each issued by the OP in the name of one “Shri Jaswant Singh”. There is nothing on record that who is this Jaswant Singh and how he is related with this complaint. In the cheques Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11 the name of Jaswant Singh is mentioned , and not the name of the CC. Moreover, there is nothing from the side of the bank whether these cheques were honoured or dishonoured by the bank. No bank endorsements are attached.
6. It appears that the CC has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the true and actual facts, we feel that the CC does not deserve any relief. Moreover it is a settled law that whosoever approaches the Court of Law by concealing the true and correct facts does not deserve any relief. It is a case where the concealment of true and actual facts is writ large on the file. The CC has suppressed the origin and genesis of the actual facts from this Commission.
8. In view of our above findings, the present complaint merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed. However, no cost is imposed. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
September 16, 2020
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
