Punjab

Sangrur

CC/544/2016

Harmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajat Book Depot - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Dhaliwal

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                           

                                                Complaint No.  544

                                                Instituted on:    06.09.2016

                                                Decided on:       19.12.2016

 

Harmeet Singh son of Ajaib Singh, resident of Village Rampura, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Rajat Book Depot, Hospital Road, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil & District Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :               Shri G.S.Dhaliwal, Adv.

For OP                     :               Shri G.P.Sharma,Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Harmeet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the daughter of the complainant, namely, Ramanpreet Kaur got appeared in the 10^th class examination in one subject.  Further case of the complainant is that in the first week of June, 2016,  the complainant approached the OP for deposit of reappear fee of his daughter and the OP agreed to deposit the reappear fee and demanded Rs.5000/- from the complainant, which includes fee and commission of the OP and the Op further assured to provide the roll number to the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant approached the OP to handover the receipt of fee deposit and of roll number, but all in vain. Further case of the complainant is that he also served a legal notice upon the OP on 23.8.2016 and requested to make the payment on account of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, but all in vain. As such,  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of compensation for spoiling one year of her daughter and further claimed compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Op into unwanted litigation, that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP as the OP has not charged even a single penny from the complainant and that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant approached the OP for the deposit of reappear fee of his daughter Ramanpreet Kaur and the OP deposited the same with the concerned office vide receipt dated 13.7.2016 and handed over the original receipt to the complainant. It is denied that the OP charged any commission from the complainant as alleged rather the OP charged Rs.3020/- only from the complainant. It has been denied that the Op gave any assurance to deliver the roll number to the complainant and also stated that the complainant has to down load the roll number from the official website of the Punjab School Education Board and her roll number is 1116390811.  It is denied that the complainant ever approached the OP. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-2 postal receipt, Ex.C-3 reply to legal notice, Ex.C-4 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 reply of legal notice, Ex.OP3&Ex.OP-4 copy of postal receipt, Ex.OP5 copy of roll number slip and Ex.OP-6 copy of fee deposit slip and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant availed the services of the OP by paying Rs.5000/- for deposit of reappear fee with the Punjab School Education Board in respect of her daughter Ramanpreet Kaur, but the Op failed to provide the roll number to the complainant and as such her daughter Ramanpreet Kaur could not appear in the examination and lost her precious one year and as such has claimed compensation from the OP.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Op has contended vehemently that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op as he never charged even a single penny in excess from the complainant and as such has contended that he charged only Rs.3020/- from the complainant, which he has deposited with the Punjab School Education Board and as such the Punjab School Education Board issued admit card under roll number 1116390811, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-5, which could have been easily downloaded from the site of Punjab School Education Board.  In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the Op has contended vehemently that the complainant is not a  consumer of the OP, as the OP charged nothing in excess from the complainant.  Moreover, the amount so received from the complainant i.e. Rs.3020/- has already been deposited with the Punjab School Education Board and accordingly the Board has issued the roll number for appearance in the reappear examination, but the complainant himself failed to download the roll number and further her daughter failed to appear in the examination.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced on record any receipt showing the payment of Rs.5000/- to the OP, as such, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to produce cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence on record that he paid the amount of Rs.5000/- to the OP.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has failed to establish a consumer of the OP in view of section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Further there is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not download the admit card/roll number from the internet for appearance in the reappear examination.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that first of all the complainant is not a consumer and further no deficiency in service has been proved on record by the OP.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 19, 2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

 

 

                                                  (Sarita Garg)

                                                     Member

 

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                           Member