Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/308/2015

Virender Kumar S/o Nathi Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pankaj Kumar s/o Fateh Chand - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Chauhan

06 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                           Complaint No. 308  of 2015.

                                                                                           Date of Institution:24.08.2015

                                                                                           Date of decision: 06.04.2017

Virender Kumar aged about 33 years son of Shri Nathi Ram, resident of village Harnoli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.   

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

Pankaj Kumar son of Shri Fateh Chand, resident of Devi Bhawan Bazar, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                           …opposite party.

Before:           SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. M.S.Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent.          

             

ORDER   (ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                      Complainant Sh. Virender Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant was in need of tubewell to be installed in his land for agriculture purpose in village Harnauli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar and for that the complainant approached the respondent (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OP). The OP assured him that he will install a good tubewell in his land as per his desire and the tubewell will work in very good and proper way without any complaint. On the assurance given by the OP, the complainant had placed an order with the OP to install the tubewell in his land. The OP has received the whole payment of Rs. 33200/- for installation of the said tubewell in advance and the tubewell was installed at his land on 26.06.2015. In the tests of the said tubewell on 06.07.2015 and 05.08.2015, it was revealed that no proper work was done and the said tubewell was giving sand instead of water, which was very much unfortunate on the part of OP. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP many times and requested to see the reason but all in vain. Even, the complainant requested the OP to return the amount of Rs. 33200/- received by him on account of installation of tubewell connection but the OP refused to do the same. Hence, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed his written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is legally not maintainable; there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties; there is no privity of contract between the parties; the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious; this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and on merit it has been stated that complainant neither approached the OP for installing the tubewell nor the OP received any amount from the complainant, as alleged in the complaint. The complainant has made concocted story just to harass the OP. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and affidavit of Gurnam Singh son of Jagir Singh as Annexure CW/B, affidavit of Sh. Ashish Kumar son of Sh. Kailash Chand as Annexure CW/C and document such as photo copy of one page of note book on which some amounts/ calculation has been shown as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Op placed on file affidavit of Pankaj Kumar as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7                      The only version of the complainant is that he hired the services of the OP for installation the tubewell in his agriculture land and paid Rs. 33200/-. At the time of placing order, the OP assured to the complainant that he will install a good tubewell in his land as per his desire and the tubewell will work in a very good and proper way without any complaint but on testing on dated 06.07.2015 and 05.08.2015, it was revealed that tubewell in question was not working properly as it was giving sand instead of water whereas on the other hand, as per the version of the OP neither they installed the tubewell in question nor they have charged any amount of Rs. 33,200/- from the complainant for installing the tubewell in question.

8.                     After going through the version of both the parties, we are of the considered view that matter involved in the present complaint cannot be decided in a summary way as elaborate evidence and cross examination of the witnesses of parties are required to ascertain the actual truth which is not possible in a summary way and for such type of cases Civil Court is the best platform. There are so many questions involved in the present complaint whether any contract was executed between the parties or any guarantee was given or not. Further, any payment of amounting to Rs. 33,200/- was made or not as no such receipt has been placed on file. The documents placed on file Annexure C-1 is not sufficient to conclude that this document was executed by the OP or not as neither it bears the signature of the OP nor the complainant. Although the complainant has placed on file 2 affidavits of Gurnam Singh and Ashish Kumar Annexure RW/B and RW/C but these affidavits have no weightage in the absence of any cogent evidence as these are easily procurable from near and dear persons.

9.                     Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is not maintainable before this forum and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court, if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 06.04.2017.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                    DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR     

                                                (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                 MEMBER.