Delhi

North East

CC/24/2024

SH. RAJESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRINCE JANGRA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 24/24

 

In the matter of:

 

	Rajesh Kumar (Singhwal) S/o Sh. Ratan Lal, R/o House No. B-71, East Nathu Colony, Gali No. 5, Shahdara, Delhi 110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.	Prince Jangra S/o Sh. Rajan Jangra   Vishal Jangra S/o Sh. Rajan Jangra   Both At: M/s Pet World, Khasra No. 548/248, Bhaktawarour Road, Burari, Delhi	Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

1. The case of the Complainant is that Complainant purchased a German Shephard dog from the Opposite Party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 27,200/-. Complainant paid the said amount to the Opposite Party No. 1 in five parts. Complainant stated that on 26.07.2024, Opposite Party No. 1 called the Complainant and said that the dog is ready to deliver and Complainant had to pay Rs. 1,200/- for delivery charges. Complainant paid Rs. 1,200/- to the Opposite Party N. 1. Complainant stated that the said puppy dog had bitten the wife of the Complainant and Complainant decided to sell out the same. After that the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No. 1 regarding to sell the said dog and Opposite Party No. 1 told that Complainant can sent back the dog to Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 1 would return the whole money i.e. Rs. 27,200/- and also paid Rs. 1,200/- as the delivery charges. Complainant agreed for the same and on 29.07.2024, the Complainant paid Rs. 1,200/-0 to the Opposite Party No. 1 and on the same day representative of Opposite Party No. 1 visited the house of the Complainant and take the said dog. Complainant stated that after two days i.e. on 31.07.2024, the Complainant called to the Opposite Party No. 1 but he did not pick up the call. Complainant stated that in the last week of August 2024 the Complainant again called to Opposite Party No. 1 to return the said money and Opposite Party No. 1 told that the said dog had been died so Opposite Party No. 1 could not return the money. Complainant stated that Opposite Parties have cheated the Complainant by not returning the amount of Rs. 27,200/- and Opposite Parties had committed an offence of cheating, fraud and liable to be prosecuted for the same. Hence, this shows the deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.
2. On perusal of the complaint, it is reveal that the Complainant mentioned year 2024 in his complaint, however, on perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant along with the complaint it is find out the year is 2023. Hence, we consider the year 2023. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Civil appeal No. 7289 of 2009 titled as The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & ANR Vs. R. Chandramohandated 27.03.2023 it is held that:-

“The Proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act.”

 

3. In the present case, Complainant stated that the Opposite Parties committed an offence of cheating. Hence in view of the above, in our considered opinion, we do not see any merit in the complaint hence, the complaint is dismissed.
4. Order announced on 31.01.24.

                 Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room

(Anil Kumar Bamba)          Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President