Haryana

Kaithal

CC/243/2022

Dinesh Kwatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

PLJ Publication - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Jitender Sharma

18 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                 Complaint Case No.243/2022.

                                                 Date of institution: 28.09.2022.

                                                 Date of decision:18.05.2023.

 

Dinesh Kwatra, Chamber No.69, Ground Floor, Lawyers Chamber Complex, Distt. Court, Kaithal.

 

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

PLJ Publications, Address S.C.O. 4-5, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Partners/Director/Manager, Mobile No.9815652222.

….OP.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Jitender Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                OP exparte.

               

ORDER

SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER

        Dinesh Kwatra-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.  

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased the 10 year subscriptions from the OP against the valuable consideration of Rs.10,500/- in cash under the scheme “Pay for 5 year get 10 year” on 05.09.2014.  The OP has not only assured to provide the original bills and receipts but also assured the complainant about the regular supply of the journal for ten years.  The journals have not been started to be received even after passing of more than one and half year, then the complainant approached the OP but he was just given the wrong excuses that there has been some fraud in the firm and some receipt books have been lost due to which there is some mismatch in the data and the same could not have been supplied due to the same reason.  The case of complainant is that after the long struggle, the complainant has found the 3.             Upon notice, the OP did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt.16.11.2022 of this commission.

4.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 & Annexure-C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.     

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased the 10 year subscriptions from the OP against the valuable consideration of Rs.10,500/- in cash under the scheme “Pay for 5 year get 10 year” on 05.09.2014.  The OP has not only assured to provide the original bills and receipts but also assured the complainant about the regular supply of the journal for ten years.  It is further argued that the journals have not been started to be received even after passing of more than one and half year, then the complainant approached the OP but he was just given the wrong excuses that there has been some fraud in the firm and some receipt books have been lost due to which there is some mismatch in the data and the same could not have been supplied due to the same reason.  It is further argued that after the long struggle, the complainant has found the 7.             It is clear from the letter dt. 10.09.2014 written by OP to the complainant Annexure-C2 that they have received a payment of Rs.10,500/- against “Pay 5 years get 10 years scheme of PLJ (Civil & Revenue)” from the complainant.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said receipt was delivered by the OP to the complainant on 28.12.2020 and they have not provided the journals till date despite receiving payment.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has also placed on file copy of legal notice dt. 28.12.2021 which was issued to the OP but they did not redress the grievances of complainant, the same is Mark-A on the file.  The complainant has testified all the contents in the affidavit so set out by him in the complaint.  Whereas, OP is also proceeded against exparte as they did not appear in the court even one time.  So, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the OP.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has prayed for refund of amount of Rs.10,500/-.

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  The OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,500/- to the complainant within 45 days from today.  It is also made clear that if the OP is failed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.10,500/- to the complainant within stipulated period, then they shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.    

9.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent-OP shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:18.05.2023.                                           (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),

Member.                            Member.       Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.