Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
- The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that Complainant purchased various articles for Gurudwara Sahib being Chief Sewadar from Opposite Party on 08.06.2017, 16.06.2017 and 01.08.2017 for Rs.81,968, Rs.1,43,696/- and Rs.36,572/- respectively, but at the time of selling said articles, the Opposite Party did not issue the bill to the Complainant. Further alleges that lateron on enquiry, the Complainant found that the Opposite Party has charged 3 times to the market price of said articles from the Complainant and in this regard, the Complainant has also obtained the estimate from M/s.Faqir Chand Ji Marble House. Further alleges that the Complainant immediately approached Opposite Party and requested Opposite Party to return the excess amount and also to issue the bills of said amount, but instead of admitting the request of Complainant, the Opposite Party insulted the Complainant by using filthy language towards him. Thereafter, the Complainant also issued legal notice upon the Opposite Party on 18.12.2017 through registered post, but with no affect and due to the aforesaid acts and conduct and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment as well as financial loss. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- The Opposite Party may be directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs on account of mental, physical harassment and professional loss and Rs.50,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the Complainant.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; the Complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; and that the Complainant has not come to this District Consumer Commission, Moga with clean hands. In fact, the Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party on 08.06.2017 and purchased the goods/ articles from Opposite Party worth Rs.3,31,968/- from which the Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2 lakhs vide cheque and Rs.50,000/- in cash to the Opposite Party and an amount of Rs.81,968/- were outstanding against the Complainant. Again the Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party to purchase the tiles/ articles on 16.06.2017 and purchased the articles for Rs.68,928/- and previous outstanding amount of Rs.81,968/- against the Complainant. The Complainant then paid only Rs.7200/- to the Opposite Party and now total outstanding amount of Rs.1,43,696/- was still due. After than the Complainant again visited the shop of Opposite Party on 01.08.2017 and purchased the articles worth Rs.27,572/- and adding the previous balance, total outstanding amount of Rs.1,71,268/- remains due against the Complainant and in this regard, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to make the outstanding amount within a short period and the Opposite Party agreed in good faith and because the material was to be used in religious Gurdwara Sahib. After waiting some time, the Opposite Party requested the Complainant to clear the outstanding amount, but under the said grudge the Complainant has filed the false complaint with malafide intention to grab the amount of the Opposite Party and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. It is the Complainant who has filed false and frivolous complaint against Opposite Party only to blackmail and harass the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is a very good reputation in Moga and its surrounding area due to the said false complaint, the reputation of the Opposite Party has been lowered down in the estimation of general public and Opposite Party reserves its right to sue the Complainant for the recovery of outstanding amount and for malicious prosecution. On merits, the Opposite Party took all most same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special costs has been made.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit Smt.Usha Rani proprietor of the Opposite Party shop Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, perused the written arguments filed by the Complainant as well as of Opposite Party and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as narrated in the complaint and contended that the Complainant purchased various articles for Gurudwara Sahib being Chief Sewadar from Opposite Party on 08.06.2017, 16.06.2017 and 01.08.2017 for Rs.81,968, Rs.1,43,696/- and Rs.36,572/- respectively, but at the time of selling said articles, the Opposite Party did not issue the bill to the Complainant. Further contended that lateron on enquiry, the Complainant found that the Opposite Party has charged 3 times to the market price of said articles from the Complainant and in this regard, the Complainant has also obtained the estimate from M/s.Faqir Chand Ji Marble House. Further alleges that the Complainant immediately approached Opposite Party and requested Opposite Party to return the excess amount and also to issue the bills of said amount, but instead of admitting the request of Complainant, the Opposite Party insulted the Complainant by using filthy language towards him. Thereafter, the Complainant also issued legal notice upon the Opposite Party on 18.12.2017 through registered post, but with no affect and due to the aforesaid acts and conduct and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment as well as financial loss.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Complainant on the ground that the Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party on 08.06.2017 and purchased the goods/ articles from Opposite Party worth Rs.3,31,968/- from which the Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2 lakhs vide cheque and Rs.50,000/- in cash to the Opposite Party and an amount of Rs.81,968/- were outstanding against the Complainant. Again the Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party to purchase the tiles/ articles on 16.06.2017 and purchased the articles for Rs.68,928/- and previous outstanding amount of Rs.81,968/- against the Complainant. The Complainant then paid only Rs.7200/- to the Opposite Party and now total outstanding amount of Rs.1,43,696/- was still due. After than the Complainant again visited the shop of Opposite Party on 01.08.2017 and purchased the articles worth Rs.27,572/- and adding the previous balance, total outstanding amount of Rs.1,71,268/- remains due against the Complainant and in this regard, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to make the outstanding amount within a short period and the Opposite Party agreed in good faith and because the material was to be used in religious Gurdwara Sahib. After waiting some time, the Opposite Party requested the Complainant to clear the outstanding amount, but under the said grudge the Complainant has filed the false complaint with malafide intention to grab the amount of the Opposite Party and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Further contended that it is the Complainant who has filed false and frivolous complaint against Opposite Party only to blackmail and harass the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is a very good reputation in Moga and its surrounding area due to the said false complaint, the reputation of the Opposite Party has been lowered down in the estimation of general public and Opposite Party reserves its right to sue the Complainant for the recovery of outstanding amount and for malicious prosecution. It is however contended that due to the greedy nature and bad conduct of the complainant, the Opposite Party suffered a loss. Not only this, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has specifically contended that the matter in dispute is the inter –se dispute between the complainant and the Opposite Party with regard to calculation/ and accounts dispute which can not be adjudicated before this Hon’ble Commission in summary procedure and in this regard he has cited a ruling of Hon’ble Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in case titled as Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Vs. Himanshu S.Thumar 2005(2) CPJ page 92, decided on 26.11.2004. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has further contended that the complainant has committed cheating with the Opposite Party by not making them the remaining amount of Rs.1,71,268/- and in this regard, he has also cited the rulings i.e. (i) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, (ii) 1(2004) CPJ page 101 of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and (iii) R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors also of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, iv) Vishamber Sunderdas Badlani And Anr. Vs. Indian Bank and 3 Ors in Original Petition No. 24 of 2005, decided on 28.9.2007 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, and v) Daljit Singh Dogra Vs. ING Vysya Bank Limited and Others in 2009(4), CLT 22 and 2009 (51) RCR (Civil) 94 decided on 29.01.2009 of Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh . To support the aforesaid contentions, the Opposite Party has produced on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1, copies of pending bills Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4.
8. First of all, perusal of the documents on file shows that there is inter- se dispute between the complainant and Opposite Party because the version of the complainant is that the Opposite Party has charged the excess amount i.e. 3 times against the goods purchased and on the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has contended that there is outstanding amount against the Complainant worth Rs.1,71,268/- and now due to malafide intention, the Complainant has filed the instant complaint only to avoid the payment of the goods so sold by the Opposite Party. In this regard, we draw support in this connection from Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Vs. Himanshu S.Thumar 2005(1) CPJ page 92, wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad has held that account dispute is not a ’consumer dispute’ and the complaint should not have been entertained by the District Consumer Commission. Hence the matter in dispute can only be decided by the civil courts and not by this Commission. Even otherwise, in the present complaint, complicated questions of facts are involved which require evidence at length and as such, the complaint can not be decided in a summary manner, therefore this Commission has no jurisdiction in the light of the judgement delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in which it has been clearly held that where there are complicated questions of facts and law which require lengthy trial and evidence to be led by both the parties and also to provide opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, then such type of the complaints should not be entertained by the Commission, rather should be relegated to the Civil Courts. But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complaint contained contentious questions of law and facts, which require voluminous evidence for deciding the same . The witnesses also require to be cross examined at length. The complaint proceedings before this Commission are summary in nature and this Commission cannot delve deep into the matter or allow the cross examination of numerous witnesses or production of voluminous documents. Since the matter relates to intricate questions of law and facts. A probe into the matter is required to be made. As such, this 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.”
9. 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 judgement 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.”
10. Further whereas, the procedure before this Commission is of summary in nature and the evidence of expert and cross-examination of alleged witnesses cannot be made in this Commission. Our Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi observed in the citation 2014(1)CLT, paged 481 titled as M/s Heights Trade (P) Ltd. Vs UCO Bank, whereas, our Hon'ble National Commission held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13-Summary Procedure. Complicated question. Jurisdiction-Intricate and complicated questions involved in the case. It would be difficult to decide the case on mere documents. The evidence of Experts and Record have to be looked into. These questions must be discussed by an appropriate forum or civil court. The Consumer Commission must refrain from arrogating those powers which it does not possess.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint stands dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court or any other competent authority for the Redressal of his grievances, if he so desires. In doing so, if limitation comes in root, he can take advantage of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute II (1995) CPJ 1. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 26.10.2021.
(Aparana Kundi) (Mohinder Singh Brar) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member Member President
