BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Satwinder Singh, s/o Sh.Nirmal Singh, r/o Village Alipur, Post Office Babat, Tehsil and District-Mohali

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Rajan Trading Company, 71, Grain Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh, through its proprietor

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA  MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Jagdish Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Pardeep Choudhry, Adv. for OP.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant sold 57 quintal wheat for Rs. 57,000/- to FCI, through OP. The complainant admitted that he received a sum of Rs. 17,760 and Rs. 24,500/- from OP and Rs.10,500/- remained balance with OP. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OP several times and requested him to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,500/-, but he put off the matter on one pretext or another. The complainant further stated that on 7.09.09, when he visited OP for his balance amount, OP flatly refused to pay the amount and threatened him not to visit his office again.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and has further prayed that OP be directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,500/- and costs of litigation alongwith the compensation towards the harassment , mental agony and loss caused to the complainant.

2.             In the written reply, OP admitted the factual matrix of the case and stated that the complainant has concealed the material facts that he approached the OP on 12.04.08, for hiring the service in respect of sale of wheat crop and accordingly received a sum of Rs.22,000/- in cash as loan-cum-advance against the crop of wheat. OP further submitted that a sum of Rs.56,760/- was to be paid to the complainant after deducting Rs.240/- as labour charges, whereas he has already paid a total sum of Rs.68,260/- to the complainant, hence as per OP, Rs.11,500/- remained in excess with the complainant.  OP further denied for any transaction in the year 2009 and stated that the complainant never visited him on 7.09.09, and the question of refusal does not arise and further stated that the complainant has to pay Rs. 11,500/- to the OP that is why the complainant filed the present complaint to get rid of the same. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.             The contention of the OP is that Satwinder Singh complainant had earlier on 12.04.08 taken from them a sum of Rs. 22,000/- which has not been paid back by him and therefore the said amount was deducted out of the total amount for which the wheat was sold vide Annexure C-1 and in this manner even excess payment of Rs.11,260/-has been made to him.  Their contention is that nothing is due from them.  Annexure R-2 is the photocopy of the receipt showing that the payment of Rs.22,000/- was made in cash as loan against the crop of wheat and is purported to have been signed by Satwinder Singh.  In his rejoinder accompanied by an affidavit the complainant has denied if Rs.22,000/- was paid to him on 12.04.08 or if Annexure R-2 bears his signature.  We are also of the opinion that Annexure R-2 is a photocopy which has been introduced by the OP to justify the non payment of the amount of Rs.10,500/- to the complainant.  Had any such payment been made earlier by the complainant on 12.04.08 they would have adjusted the amount in the receipt Annexure C-1 issued on 28.04.08.  It is not so that the earlier payments have not been adjusted in this receipt.  The payment of Rs. 4,000/- made on 28.04.08, Rs. 17,760/- made on 29.04.08 and Rs.24,500 made on 9.05.,08 have already been accounted for in the receipt Annexure C-1.  It is mentioned therein that a sum of Rs.10,500/- was still due from the OP towards the sale of the said wheat.  It shows that Annexure R-2 did not exist even till 9.05.08 on which date the payment of Rs.24,500/- was made to the complainant.  Had it been so, not only that the amount of Rs. 22,000/- would have been adjusted in the original receipt Annexure C-1, the OP would not have paid Rs.24,500/- on 9.05.08, much in excess of his liability.

6.             There is yet another reason as to why the payment of Rs. 22,000/- to the complainant is not proved.  The OP has not produced the account books to suggest if any such amount was withdrawn from the accounts of the Firm and was paid to the complainant.  In the absence of the amount having been withdrawn, the OP was not having any such amount for payment and therefore the receipt obviously is proved to be a fabricated one.

7.      The OP moved an application seeking permission to examine the handwriting expert in order to prove the signature of the complainant on receipt Annexure  R-2 or in the alternative to relegate the present matter to the Civil Court.  The application is opposed. This application cannot be allowed for the simple reason firstly that the original receipt dated 12.04.08 has not been produced by the complainant and secondly the examination of the photocopy of signature cannot be permitted because only the original signature can be allowed to be compared.  We cannot lose sight of the fact that these days the signatures existing on a genuine document could be conveniently photocopied on any other receipt or fabricated document. Mere examination of the signature on Anneuxre R-2 cannot prove the payment of money. It is only the original receipt which would be admissible in evidence and not a photocopy, the existence of which is disputed.  The requests made by the OP for examination of the signature of the complainant on Annexure R-2 therefore cannot be allowed. 

8.             The second request made in this application is to relegate the parties to the Civil Court.  The facts and circumstances fully suggest that no such payment of Rs. 22,000/- had been made by the OP to the complainant on 12.04.08.  This request for relegating the matter to the Civil Court has been made by the OP with an ulterior motive to delay the disposal of the dispute, so that the complainant is further harassed.  Otherwise what ever evidence the OP could produce, could be produced even before this Forum and the dispute can be effectively decided by this Forum.  Neither it is a complicated matter nor a lengthy one in which further evidence would be needed.  The matter therefore can be disposed of by this Forum.  The result is that there is no merit in the application moved by the OP and the same is accordingly dismissed.

9.             There is no dispute about it that the complainant had engaged the services of the OP for selling the wheat crop. A relationship of the consumer and service provider therefore came in existence between the parties.  After selling the wheat it was the duty of the OP to make the payment to the complainant which he has partly made but the remaining amount of Rs.10,500/-,  which fact is mentioned in Annexure C-1 also. The OP is therefore deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant.

10.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed.  The OP is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,500/- alongwith a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to the complainant and taking a false ground in the reply by fabricating  the receipt Annexure R-2. The OP shall also pay Rs.2200/- as costs of litigation.  The entire amount shall be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which OP would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 14.09.09, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.