DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.698 of 2014
Date of institution: 17.12.2014 Date of decision : 16.09.2020
Santosh Singh son of Sawran Singh, resident of 2158, Purani Mandi, Guru Bazar, Chiatta, Amritsar.
…….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 in the month of September, 2012, CC approached the OP office in order to apply for the visa to go abroad with work permit and in this regard the CC paid Rs.5,40,000/- “in cash” to the OP. However, the name of the country is not mentioned. It is alleged that it was promised by the OP that in case there is rejection of visa, in that event the amount will be refunded to the CC. The settlement was reduced into writing by the OP with her own hands. It is alleged that after receiving the amount of Rs.5,40,000/-, the OP issued two cheques bearing No.134323 dated nil of Rs.2,50,000/- and another cheque bearing No.132031 dated 03.10.2012 of Bank of India, Mohali. It is alleged that OP had misled the CC. The OP neither could arrange any visa nor refunded the amount. It is further alleged that both the cheques were presented in the bank, but the same were dishonoured with the remarks “exceed arrangement”.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought refund of Rs.5,40,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and has also 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-7 and thereafter closed his evidence.
4. Since 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 also pertains to the year 2014.
5. In the present complaint, the CC has sought refund of Rs.5,40,000/- which he has allegedly paid to the OP “in cash”. It is further alleged in the complaint that in lieu of this payment, the OP was supposed to provide Visa alongwith work permit to the CC. It is pertinent to mention here that the CC has relied upon document Ex.C-1. Surprisingly the name of the CC is not mentioned in Ex.C-1, the alleged FIR. Another document relied upon by CC is Ex.C-2 where one “Santokh Singh” son of Sawarn Singh had paid Rs.80,000/- “in cash” to the OP. The name of the CC is not Santokh Singh. It is important to mention here that in Ex.C-2, there is only one stamp of the OP below this document but the same is not even signed either by the OP or by any of her official. It is also pertinent to mention here that the name of complainant is Santosh Singh and not Santokh Singh. Even the particulars mentioned in the complaint differ from the particulars mentioned in Ex.C-2.
6. Document Ex.C-3 which is allegedly signed by OP on 03.07.2012 is showing payment of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the OP by one Santokh Singh and not by Santosh Singh. Another document Ex.C-4 is showing receipt of payment from Santokh Singh to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- which is duly signed by Shalini Kapoor, the OP. It is important to mention here that signatures of Shailini Kapoor in Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 and even the handwriting allegedly of Shalini Kapoor in Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 do not match. It is again important to mention here that Ex.C-5 is photocopy of cheque to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- signed by Shalini Kapoor. It is pertinent to mention here that there is nothing on record to prove whether this cheque was presented by the CC in the bank or not. There is no endorsement qua this cheque submitted by CC. There is nothing on record to prove that this cheque eventually got bounced. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the CC presented the cheque No.132031 for encashment which was dishonoured by the bank on the ground of ‘exceeds arrangement” but there is nothing on record regarding presentation of cheque No.134323. Moreover, there is nothing in the complaint that after bouncing of cheque No.132031 of Rs.2.00 lakhs, whether any notice was served upon the OP under Section 138 of N.I. Act or not or whether the CC had chosen to start criminal proceedings against the CC or not. No evidence is brought on record whether Santosh Singh or Santokh Singh is the same person.
7. From the perusal of all documents, it appears that the CC has suppressed the true and correct facts from this Commission. It appears that the CC has suppressed the origin and genesis of the actual facts from this Commission. No doubt the Consumer Protection Act is enacted to protect the rights of the consumers and also to provide a speedy redressal of their grievances but at the same time the intention of the legislature is very clear. Nobody can be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission by concealing true and correct facts and by not submitting documents to the satisfaction of the Commission. From the very perusal of the file it appears that this is a case where the CC has suppressed the true and actual facts from this Commission. We feel, that in that eventuality, the CC does not deserve any relief from this Commission. Otherwise also it is a settled preposition of law that whosoever does not approach the court of law with true and correct facts, does not deserve any relief.
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
