DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.696 of 2014
Date of institution: 15.12.2014 Date of decision : 16.09.2020
Sukhmander Singh son of Gurdeep Singh, resident of village Jalaiana, District Faridkot, Tehsil Kotkapura, P.O. Sandham.
…….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 had approached the office of OP in order to apply for visa alongwith work permit. However, the name of the country is not mentioned. It is alleged that OP had received an amount to the tune of Rs.2,10,000/- “in cash” from the CC and gave the promise that in case visa is not provided, the said amount will be refunded to the CC. This undertaking was given by the OP in writing to the CC. The OP also issued one cheque to the CC bearing No.132012 dated 16.09.2012 to the tune of Rs.1.00 lakh to be encashed by Bank of India, Mohali in favour of the CC. It is alleged that the OP misled the CC. Neither any visa was arranged nor the OP refunded the amount. Cheque bearing No.132012 dated 16.09.2019 was dishonoured by the bank.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought the following relief:
(a) refund of Rs.2,10,000/- 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-5 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. Virtually the CC has sought refund of Rs.2,10,000/- which he allegedly gave to the OP “in cash”. However, no receipt of this amount, which is paid to the OP “in cash” has been produced by the CC or attached with the complaint. We have also perused the document Ex.C-1 which is allegedly the FIR. It is pertinent to mention here that the name of the CC does not figure in the FIR. The CC has submitted another document Ex.C-2 which is showing receipt of Rs.1.00 lakh only by the OP “in cash” on 25.01.2011. Another receipt Ex.C-3 submitted by the CC is showing receipt of Rs.10,000/- only by the OP “in cash”.
6. It is important to mention here that another document Ex.C-4 is signed by one Ranveer Singh on 07.12.2012 which appears to be absolutely vague and absurd. According to this document one Ranveer Singh son of Lakhvinder Singh has given some payment to Sawran Singh son of Sukhmander Singh of Rs.4,20,000/-. 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. Other document Ex.C-5 is photocopy of cheque bearing No.132012 dated 16.09.2012 to the tune of Rs.1.00 lakh which is duly signed by OP. It is important to mention here that the CC has not submitted any bank document to prove that this cheque was dishonoured by the bank or not. No agreement to provide visa alongwith work permit has been produced on the file by the CC. The entire complaint itself appears to be vague and full of suppression of true and correct facts. In the absence of any cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence, we cannot believe the contents of the complaint which otherwise appears to be suppressing true and correct facts.
6. From the perusal of all documents, it appears that the CC has suppressed 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
