PER:
Ms. Nidhi Verma, Member
1 The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.
2 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 13 against the opposite party on the allegations that complainant was constructing his property and during that the period one Mr.Vijay, representative of the opposite party came on the spot and allured him to get wooden flooring of his property from the opposite party. He took measurement of the total area for fitting of wooden flooring and total area measured was 1050 Sq. Ft. and rate was settled at Rs.380 per Sq. Ft. The total cost was calculated of Rs.3,99,000/- for fitting wooden flooring the model ‘ROBOSTO’ which includes labour & fitting charges. This transaction was acknowledge and accepted by the opposite party confirming the order with promise to install/ fit the flooring with said model within ten days. On the demand of the opposite party the complainant remitted Rs.2,00,000/- on 24.11.2015 by RTGS form his bank account No.84040100160112 to the account of opposite party, which was duly accepted and acknowledged by the opposite party by sending fitting material wooden flooring of some other model of inferior quality for which the complainant had not given his consent and the opposite party took back the material with assurance that they will shortly supply the wooden flooring of Model RUBOSTO for which order was placed. Thereafter the complainant continuously remained in touch with the opposite party but every time the opposite party made one excuse or the other that stock of Model-RUBOSTO wooden flooring is not in their stock and will supply/ fit the same on receipt of the same from the company. The opposite party had received of Rs.2.00 lakh from the complainant by making allurements and misrepresentation and has failed to supply and complete the work even after lapse of 15 months and has caused mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant by their acts of deficiency in service because the construction work of the property of the complainant had not been finished for his occupation. The opposite party had accepted the order by false allurements and received huge amount of Rs.2.00 Lakh when they had no stock of the said model and had further failed to purchase the said model to fulfill their commitment with the complainant. The complainant has prayed that the following reliefs may be granted to the complainant against the opposite party.
(i) Directions to opposite party to supply and fix wooden floor of Model ROBUSTO as per order of complainant at agreed price in his property at Amritsar within one week from date of order or on failure to ret8rn of Rs.2.00 lakh of amount received from complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. form the date of receipt till payment because the opposite party has utilized the money of complainant for its financial/ business purposes for gain.
(ii) Opposite party be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and agony for continuous period of 15 months by their acts of deficiency in service.
(iii) Opposite party be also burdened litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- for compelling the complainant to file present complaint.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is not legally maintainable as the same is an abuse of process of law. The complainant has not come to the Hon’ble commission with clean hand and has suppressed the true and material facts form the notice of this commission and hence the complainant is guilty of misleading this commission. The contents of the present complaint are far away true facts and circumstances and complainant has deliberately suppressed the material facts from this Commission. The complainant while formulating this cooked up complaint has deliberately is misleading this Commission and has not approached with clean hands and as such the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the present complaint and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. The opposite party deals in the business of sale purchase of material of interior decoration and in the month of November 2015 on Rajan Bedi and Manish approached the opposite party through Vijay Sharma for taking sub-dealership/ distributorship of Amritsar for the purpose of business of wooden files from the opposite party and its was represented by the said Rajan Bedi and Manish that they are partners of M/s Wood luster and it has been agreed and assured by them that they shall continuously raise stock of Rs.10,00,000/- every month from the opposite party exclusively for their business/ commercial purposed for earning profits from their commercial / business activities by selling those goods/ wooden tiles to their customer after purchasing the same from the opposite party being sub dealer/ distributor of Amritsar City and after finalizing the said negotiations the above said persons namely Rajan Bedi and Mansih through RTGS entry from the account of one Mr. Anu Bedi alleged himself to be in the blood relations of Rajan Bedi transferred Rs.2.00 lakh to the opposite party and it was futher assured by them that they shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- after providing display/ laminated wooden flooring to the aforesaid persons and in this respect the opposite party delivered the goods worthy Rs.98,620.27 Paise including local cartage, taxes/ VAT etc. and the detail of the same is given as below and copy of the bill is annexed herewith:-
Sr.No. | Name of Product Specification | No. of Boxes | Qty. (in sft/RFT) | Rate | Amount (in Rs.) |
1) | Kronotex Laminated wooden flooring Amazon AC-5, Shade No.2323, 2461, 4166, 4167, 4168, 3572 (1 Box Each Shade) | 6 | 83.88 | 140.00 | 11743.20 |
2) | Robusto AC-C, Shade No.3591, 3573, 3570, 3181, 2778, 3075, ( 1 Box Each Shade) | 6 | 83.46 | 140.00 | 11684.40 |
3) | Ocean AC-5, Shade No.2443, 2444 (1 Box Each Shade) | 3 | 39.90 | 160.00 | 6384.00 |
4) | Dynamic AC04, Shade No.D764, 3009, 3235, 3580, 2983, 2986, 4163, D406, 3581, 4172, 3203, 1329, 3531, 1440, 2961 (1 Box Each Shade) | 15 | 344.10 | 75.00 | 25807.50 |
5) | Laminated Wooden Flooring- Citrus Shade No.1001 to 1010 (1 Box Each Shade) | 10 | 204.64 | 48.00 | 9822.72 |
6) | Laminated Wooden Flooring- Woodstock Shade No.2001.02.03.04.05.06.07.08 & 2010 with SOS (1 Box Each Shade) | 9 | 204.66 | 70.00 | 14326.20 |
7) | Readymade Skirting | 3 | 24.00 | 65.00 | 1560.00 |
8) | Stair End Profile | 3 | 24.00 | 120.00 | 2880.00 |
9) | Reducer | 4 | 32.00 | 55.00 | 1760.00 |
10) | Packing Charges | 50 | | 25.00 | 1250.00 |
| | 59 | 1040.64 | | 87218.02 |
| | VAT @ 12.50% | | | 10902.25 |
| | Local Cartage | | | 500.00 |
| | Grand Total | | | 98,620.27 |
After supplying the above said display/ laminated wooden flooring alongwith other goods as detailed above vide bill dated 16.12.2014, the opposite party further asked the above said person to pay the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and to received/ take over the goods/ wooden tiles worth of Rs.8,00,000/- for the sale of such goods/ articles as sub-dealer/ distributorship of the opposite party for the commercial/ business purposes as settle between them and the opposite party, but the above said persons namely Rajan Bedi and Manish have failed to make further payments to the opposite party and to take over goods/ wooden tiles from the opposite party for selling the same, but inspite of repeated requested made by the opposite party they have failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.8.00 lakh and to take over the goods/ articles from the opposite party which were readily available with the opposite party for delivery to them as per settlement. The present complaint is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. All the dealing was finalized between the opposite party and wood luster through Rajan Bedi Manish who have alleged themselves to be the partners of said form an as such they are liable to be made necessary parties to the present case. Keeping in view the detailed facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above it is crystal clear that no dealing in any manner whatsoever was ever made between the complainant and opposite party except that only the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was transferred in the bank account of Anu Bedi being in blood relation with the said Rajan Bedi who alleged himself to be the partner of firm M/s woodluster and as such the complainant is not the he consumer of the opposite party as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, as amended upto date and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. No cause of action arose in favour of complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party and the present complaint is based upon manipulated and unlawful cause of action and as such the same is liable to be dismissed on this score also. Keeping in view the allegations as leveled in the present complaint it is clearly evident that the dispute involved in the present complaint is purely of Civil nature and substantial question of law involved which required enquiry by way of detailed evidence by the parties to the case and the same cannot be decided in a summary procedure and as such this Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and the other efficacious remedy is available with the complainant to knock the door of Hon’ble Civil court, but the complainant has intentionally an willfully not availed such other equal efficacious remedy and has filed the present complaint just to get some favourable relief by way of misleading this commission. Keeping in view the allegation leveled in the complaint it is clearly evident that there is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of replying opposite party and as such the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
4 To prove his case, Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, copy of pass book Ex. C-2 and C-3, copy of account ledger injury Ex. C-4, additional affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-5, affidavit of Narinder Kumar Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Umesh Ghai Manging Director Ex. OPW1/A, quotation of Maximum retail price list w.e.f. April 2015 Ex. OP1, copy of the display of tiles in different shades Ex. OP2, copy of quotation Ex. OP3, copy of delivery Challan Ex. OP4 and closed the evidence.
5 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
6 In this present complaint, the complainant was constructing his property and during that Mr Vijay Sharma representative of the opposite party came on the spot and allured him to get wooden floor of his property from the opposite party . Total area measured was 1050 square feet and rate was settled ₹380 per square feet . The total cost was calculated of ₹3,99,000 for fitting wooden floor of model ROBOSTO Which includes labour and fitting charges. On dated 24th November 2015 the complainant paid ₹2,00,000 by RTGS from his bank account number 840401001601122 to the opposite party but OP sent wooden flooring of some other model of inferior quality for which the complaint had not given its consent and the opposite party took back the material with assurance that they will shortly supply the wooden flooring of module RUBOSTO. The opposite party had received ₹2,00,000 from the complainant by making allurement and misrepresentation and failed to supply and complete the work even after the lapse of 15 months. The OP stated in their written version that in the month of November 2015 Rajan Bedi and Manish approached to the opposite party through Vijay Sharma for taking sub dealership of Amritsar for the purpose of business of wooden tiles from the opposite party and it was represented by the said Rajan Bedi and Manish that they are partners of M/s Woodluster and it has been agreed and assured by them that they shall continuously raise stock of ₹10,00,000 every month from the opposite party for their business purpose. Later they transferred ₹2,00,000 from the account of Anu Bedi alleged himself to be in the blood relations of Rajan bedi . It was a further assured by them that they shall pay the remaining amount of ₹8,00,000 after displaying wooden flooring and in this respect to the opposite party delivered the goods worth rupees 98,620 including local cartage, taxes, VAT etc. the details of the same is given below :-
Sr.No. | Name of Product Specification | No. of Boxes | Qty. (in sft/RFT) | Rate | Amount (in Rs.) |
1) | Kronotex Laminated wooden flooring Amazon AC-5, Shade No.2323, 2461, 4166, 4167, 4168, 3572 (1 Box Each Shade) | 6 | 83.88 | 140.00 | 11743.20 |
2) | Robusto AC-C, Shade No.3591, 3573, 3570, 3181, 2778, 3075, ( 1 Box Each Shade) | 6 | 83.46 | 140.00 | 11684.40 |
3) | Ocean AC-5, Shade No.2443, 2444 (1 Box Each Shade) | 3 | 39.90 | 160.00 | 6384.00 |
4) | Dynamic AC04, Shade No.D764, 3009, 3235, 3580, 2983, 2986, 4163, D406, 3581, 4172, 3203, 1329, 3531, 1440, 2961 (1 Box Each Shade) | 15 | 344.10 | 75.00 | 25807.50 |
5) | Laminated Wooden Flooring- Citrus Shade No.1001 to 1010 (1 Box Each Shade) | 10 | 204.64 | 48.00 | 9822.72 |
6) | Laminated Wooden Flooring- Woodstock Shade No.2001.02.03.04.05.06.07.08 & 2010 with SOS (1 Box Each Shade) | 9 | 204.66 | 70.00 | 14326.20 |
7) | Readymade Skirting | 3 | 24.00 | 65.00 | 1560.00 |
8) | Stair End Profile | 3 | 24.00 | 120.00 | 2880.00 |
9) | Reducer | 4 | 32.00 | 55.00 | 1760.00 |
10) | Packing Charges | 50 | | 25.00 | 1250.00 |
| | 59 | 1040.64 | | 87218.02 |
| | VAT @ 12.50% | | | 10902.25 |
| | Local Cartage | | | 500.00 |
| | Grand Total | | | 98,620.27 |
Further, opposite party said the persons to pay the remaining amount of ₹8,00,000 and take over the wooden tiles worth Rs 8,00,000 for the sale of such goods but they failed to make further payments to the opposite party and to take over the wooden tiles from the opposite party for selling the same, in spite of repeated request made by the opposite party they failed to pay the remaining amount . It is pertinent to mention over here that all the dealing was finalized between the opposite party and woodluster through Rajan Bedi and Manish who have alleged themselves to be the partners of said firm. In the view of above discussion and documents placed on record, the OP placed an evidence of the bill amount of Rs 98620.27/- of tiles they have sent to Woodluster (Ex OP 3) but have no billing on the name of Anu Bedi . The complainant in spite of providing the bill for the amount he transferred to the OP of Rs 200,000/- but provided his bank statement as an evidence that he transferred the amount to OP . Further, the complainant failed to prove his point that he ordered the wooden tiles of Model “RUBOSTO” . Moreover , the complainant to prove his point can submit the pictures, documents or any thing else to prove that their house was under construction. Moreover, the complainant said ,“the OP took back the material with assurance that they will shortly supply wooden flooring of Model ROBOSTO because OP send some inferior quality of material ” but again the complainant failed to provide any evidence that material was taken back by the OP. Further , the complainant submitted the affidavit that , “they don’t know any person with name of Rajan Bedi and Manish. And don’t have any family member with name of Rajan Bedi”.
7 But questions arises here that ,if the complainant transferred the amount of Rs 200,000/- in the account of the OP , then why they have not provide bill of the same . However , if we consider the bill of the OP (EX . OP3) then it is on the name of Woodluster and not the Anu Bedi and same prove the point of the OP that ,they purchased the goods for business purpose and not for constructing their house. Keeping in view the allegations as leveled in the present complaint it is clearly evident that the dispute involved in the present complaint is purely of civil nature and substantial question of law involved which requires inquiry by way of detail evidence, cross examination. As such , this District Commission cannot exercise its jurisdiction to decide the intricate questions of law and facts in a summary manner. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgment which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
8 In view of above discussion, the instant complaint is relegated to the Civil Court for deciding the matter in accordance with law. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. Copy of order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
Announced in Open Commission
22.09.2022
