PER:

Charanjit Singh, President.

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 purchased imported Sawn/ Teak Wood from the opposite party for his under construction house vide its invoice No. 1054 & 1065 dated 8.10.2016 and 5.11.2016 respectively. The complainant is consumer as provided under the Act. The said material when fitted as windows, ventilators and doors and material started breaking up automatically and started falling down and material giving up and cracks started developing the complaint to the said effect was made to the opposite party who deputed its staff to verify the problem and the visiting staff of opposite party candidly admitted that the wood supplied to the complainant is not of the proper quality further acknowledged to change the entire material. The complainant approached the opposite party and requested to change the entire defective material supplied by them and also get the same removed and refitted, as the expenditure further involved around Rs. 2.60 Lacs for the said purpose because the said material is now fitted in window frames/ panels which are further fitted with concrete material and labour cost is also involved as window frames/ panels are totally destroyed and doors/ Chugaths and cannot be reused. The opposite party flatly refused to change the defective material supplied by them and to get the same replaced. The complainant is ready to get the said material checked from the appropriate laboratory as prescribed u/s 13(1)(c) as and when this commission directs in this regard. The complainant has prayed that the following reliefs may8 be granted:-

(a)     The opposite party be directed to refund the amount of Rs.62213/63 P & Rs. 78064/37 P alongwith interest @12% from the date of payment till realization.

(b)     The opposite party be directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.

(c)      The opposite party be directed to pay the adequate cost of litigation.

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 complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this commission. In this case the complainant purchased imported teak wood and sawn wood from the opposite party vide invoice bearing No. 1054 dated 8.10.2016 amounting to Rs. 62213.63 Paise, invoice No. 1065 dated 5.11.2016 amounting to Rs. 78064.37 Paise and invoice No. 1079 dated 9.12.2016 amounting to Rs. 88563.20 Paise total amounting to Rs. 2,28,841.20 paise. Out of which the complainant had paid Rs. 1,40,278/- of invoice No. 1054 and 1065 and balance amount of Rs. 88563.20 of invoice No. 1079 is till due towards her, therefore, a notice dated 26.5.2017 was issued to the complainant for making the payment, instead of making the payment, the present complaint has been filed on the false and frivolous grounds, just to avoid the due payment, for which the complainant is liable to make the payment and this fact has been concealed, which shows that the complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. The complainant has not filed any expert opinion, therefore, the present complaint is not tenable. The complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint without any cause of action against the opposite party ,therefore, liable to be dismissed. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant purchased the wood as mentioned in the aforesaid three bills, out of which payment of one bill is pending, secondly at the time of purchase, the complainant never disclosed for what purpose the wood is required to her. The wood is a normal product, in manufacturing the same, the opposite party is having no role. The wood was sold in wooden block shape (Shatiri) in cubic foot and it is the person who purchased the same is required to take precautions before using the same to construct windows, doors etc. In case any defect occurs in the material as mentioned in the complaint, it shows that precautions have not been taken by the purchasers while  making the windows, doors, etc. There is no role to play by the seller. The important sawn wood was sold to the complainant and after thorough checking the same was purchased, even the wood was also got checked by the complainant from the carpenter before purchasing and thereafter, the delivery was taken from the opposite party.  The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        To prove his case, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, copy of invoices Ex. C-2 and Ex. C-3, affidavit of Arvinder Singh Ex. C-4, copy of report of Arvinder Singh Ex. C-5 alongwith 10 photographs and closed the evidence. On the other hands, opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Neeraj Aggarwal Ex. OP1/1.

5        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party and have gone through the record on the file.

6        In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased wood from the opposite party. The complainant has alleged that he has purchased the wood vide invoice Nos. 1054 and 1065. But on the other hands, the opposite party alleged that the complainant purchased the wood vide invoice No. 1054, 1065, 1079. The complainant alleged that he has made the whole payment, but on the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party argued that amount of invoice No. 1079 is due towards the complainant and to avoid the said payment, the complainant has filed the present complaint just to avoid the payment.

7        From the pleadings and documents of the parties, it transpired that there is dispute regarding the payment and to decide this question that the complainant has made the payment qua invoice No. 1079 to the opposite party or not and as to whether the complainant has filed the present complaint to avoid the amount due towards the opposite party. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion to ascertain that the wood which was supplied by the opposite party is a substandard one. A detail evidence, cross examination is required and intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case. 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 judgment 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.  All the applications pending in this case are disposed off. Copy of order be supplied 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

15.09.2022