Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/844/2022

MANDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB HOME GUARDS CANINE TRAINING & BREEDING INSTITUTE - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

05 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/844/2022
Date of Institution	:	30/09/2022
Date of Decision	:	05/09/2023

 

Mandeep Singh son of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, resident of House No.220, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh-160022.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Punjab Home Guards Canine Training & Breeding Institute, Punjab P.O. Mubarikpur, Village Sundraan, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab 140207 India.
2. Simrat Pal Sidhu (alias Newton Sidhu), Director, Punjab Home Guards Canine Training & Breeding Institute, Punjab P.O. Mubarikpur, Village Sundraan, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab 140207 India.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Mandeep Singh, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant and his family members are dog lovers.  On the birthday of his son, to be celebrated on 21.4.2022, complainant had decided to gift him two puppies. Accordingly, in the month of March 2022, the complainant started surfing on the internet and making queries to buy two human friendly puppies as he was interested in buying a pair of “Mountain Bernese" (hereinafter referred to as “subject puppies”).  On account of constant surfing on the global websites, representatives of OP-2-Simrat Pal Sidhu @ Newton Sidhu contacted the complainant and assured that OP-2 would be able to provide all the breeds including the subject puppies. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of OPs where the OPs committed to provide the subject puppies before 21.4.2022. Complainant was also given the mobile number of OP-2 and asked to contact him directly on the ground that he is not readily available at the site and used to be on foreign trips.  After detailed discussions and negotiations, OPs agreed to provide a pair of subject puppies at the total cost of ₹2,25,000/-, which was transferred by the complainant in the account of OP-2 as per details provided by him. After making the aforesaid payment in favour of OPs, complainant continuously contacted OP-2 through WhatsApp and every time OP-2 assured him that the subject puppies will be delivered to him shortly, but, no concrete step was taken for the said purpose.  As the OPs, even after receiving a huge amount, neither delivered the subject puppies nor refunded the said amount, despite repeated requests, complainant sent a legal notice dated 1.8.2022 (Ex.C-7) to the OPs which was duly received by them as per the track consignment report (Ex.C-8), but, to no avail. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Commission, initially Sh. Simrat Pal Sidhu (OP-2) appeared in person for himself and on behalf of OP-1 and sought time for filing reply and evidence. However, subsequently as neither OP-2 filed reply and evidence nor anybody put in appearance on his behalf, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.3.2023.
3. OP-1 resisted the consumer complaint, filed its written version (through post) and specifically alleged that OP-1 is not directly or indirectly involved with the complainant nor the complainant was ever assured by it that the subject puppies will be imported and delivered to him.  It is further alleged that chats/communication of the complainant were only done with Simrat Pal Sidhu (OP-2), in whose account the alleged amount was transferred by the complainant, and there is no direct or indirect involvement of OP-1 with the said communication between complainant and Simrat Pal Sidhu (OP-2) and OP-2 be made liable in his personal capacity and not on behalf of OP-1. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied. The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint by specifically alleging that in fact OP-2/Simrat Pal Sidhu is the Director of OP-1 which is also clear from the documents i.e. information/brochure (Ex.C-9) available on the website of OP-1 and from the cuttings of certain newspapers (Ex.C-10 & C-11) and the photographs (Ex.C-12) and OP-1 cannot escape from its liability on the ground that OP-2 has no concern with OP-1.  Prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered/proved evidence by way of affidavits and supporting documents. However, as OP-1 failed to file evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunity, therefore, vide order dated 4.5.2023 of this Commission, opportunity to file the same was closed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that OP-1 deals with the training and sale of dogs/puppies and the complainant had contacted the OPs through OP-2 Simrat Pal Sidhu @ Newton Sidhu and had placed an order for a pair of puppies “Mountain Bernese” i.e. the subject puppies by transferring an amount of ₹2,25,000/- in the account of OP-2 and till date neither the subject puppies have been delivered nor the aforesaid amount has been refunded to the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OP-2, being the Director of OP-1, has made false or misleading advertisement and after receiving a huge amount from the complainant have failed to provide the subject puppies or refund the amount to the complainant and the said advertisement was prejudicial to the interest of the complainant and the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if OP-1 has nothing to do with the aforesaid act done by OP-2 and the consumer complaint is not maintainable against it and only OP-2 is liable for the said act, as is the defence of OP-1.
   2. In order to prove the fact that OP-2 is the Director of OP-1 and both the OPs had assured the complainant that a pair of subject puppies would be delivered to him after receiving an amount of ₹2,25,000/- from him, complainant has proved the Whatsapp chat (Ex.C-2 to C-6) between the complainant and OP-2 which clearly indicate that OP-2 had agreed to deliver the subject puppies to the complainant after detailed discussion and after receiving an amount of ₹2,25,000/- in his account through RTGS, as is also evident from Ex.C-5 at page 31 of the consumer complaint.  It is further clear from the Whatsapp chat (Ex.C-6) between the complainant and OP-2 that the complainant remained in touch with OP-2 and requested him several times to either deliver the subject puppies to him or to refund the amount paid by him, but, till the filing of the instant consumer complaint, neither the OPs have delivered the subject puppies to the complainant nor have refunded the aforesaid amount in his account.
   3. Though OP-1 has specifically denied the allegations made in the consumer complaint that it has any concern with the aforesaid transaction made by the complainant for the purchase of a pair of subject puppies from OP-2 nor has any concern with OP-2, who can only be held liable for the aforesaid act, but the said defence set up by OP-1 stands falsified from the information/brochure (Ex.C-9) downloaded by the complainant from the website of OP-1 itself, which clearly indicates that OP-2/Simrat Pal Sidhu @ Newton Sidhu has been shown as Director of OP-1 i.e. Punjab Home Guards Canine Training & Breeding Institute.   Not only this, two news item cuttings published in The Tribune (Ex.C-10) and The New Indian Express (Ex.C-11) further clearly indicate that Newton Sidhu/OP-2 has claimed himself to be the director of OP-1. This fact further stands proved from the photographs (Ex.C-12) which clearly indicate that OP-2 had represented himself to be the director of OP-1.
   4. Moreover, even in the written version of OP-1, nothing has been disclosed, by whom the said written version was signed and this defence of OP-1 further stands falsified from order sheet dated 13.12.2022 when OP-2/Simrat Pal Sidhu had appeared in person for himself and on behalf of OP-1 and his presence was marked accordingly, making further clear that in fact OP-2, being Director of OP-1, tried to mislead the complainant as well as this Commission, while putting in appearance, in order to escape joint liability of OPs towards the complainant.
   5. As it stands proved on record that the complainant had transferred an amount of ₹2,25,000/- to the OPs for the purchase of subject puppies and, till date, neither the subject puppies had been delivered nor the aforesaid amount refunded to him by the OPs, it is safe to hold that the said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹2,25,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 28.3.2022 onwards
2. to pay an amount of ₹30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/-  to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 05/09/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member