Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/85/2019

Suresh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rakesh Shiv Goraa - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Thakur

10 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.85 of 2019.

Date of instt.:08.3.2019. 

                                                                         Date of Decision:10.02.2020.

 

Suresh s/o late Shri Ramesh Kumar, r/o H.No.3842/8, Gandhi Nagar, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                       Versus

 

Rakesh Shiv Gora Jewellers, r/o Shop situated at Chhota Bazaar, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                ….…Opposite party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Shekhar Thakur, Advocate for the complainant.        

Ms. Rekha Devi, Advocate for the opposite party.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Suresh against Rakesh Shiv Gora Jewellers, the opposite party.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the mother of complainant namely Smt. Anguri Devi w/o late Shri Ramesh Kumar had deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- with the OP for the ornaments made of golden and silver etc. for the marriage of her daughter namely Saneh Lata. This fact was told by his mother to them before taking her last breath, but the OP did not give any receipt in this regard to her and he always stated to her that now her daughter is minor and they are in good terms so there is no need to give any receipt in this regard. His mother had expired on 05.1.2018. That her sister Saneh Lata also deposited amount in installments for the ornaments etc. and on asking for receipts, the OP stated that there was very good term with their mother, so there is no need for any receipt in this regard. That on repeated requests, the OP had issued only a receipt of Rs.12,300/-. That her sister went to the shop of OP for purchasing a pair Om weighing 4 grams, upon which, the OP stated that her mother had already ordered ear rings for her. Her sister demanded said ornaments made of gold ornaments of Halmarks, upon which, the OP became angry and gave duplicate/artificial ornaments to her in place of golden Halmarks ornaments. The complainant kept on visiting to the shop of OP and demanded the original ornaments for the marriage of her sister, but every time the OP lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and flatly refused to supply/give any ornament and also refused to return the amount and threatened to kill him, if he again visited to his shop. The said act and conduct of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi and jurisdiction. It is stated that the mother of the complainant who deposited the alleged amount never complained to the OP nor to any administrative authority. On merits, it is submitted that the OP does not know the mother of the complainant. The mother of the complainant never deposited any money with the OP as alleged. Neither the complainant nor his mother ever hired the services of the OP. When no payment is deposited with the OP either by the complainant or by his mother, then question of issuing any receipt does not arise at all. The OP in due course of business used to issue the bill/receipt to its customer after receipt of the payment. If the OP received the amount, then the OP definitely issued the receipt of the same. Moreover the complainant, his mother and his sister were themselves having no source of income to pay such a huge amount for the purchase of these ornaments. The rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Ex.R-1.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the mother of complainant namely Smt. Anguri Devi had deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- with the OP for the ornaments made of golden and silver etc. for the marriage of her daughter namely Sneh Lata and told this fact to them before taking her last breath. However, the OP did not give any receipt in this regard to her and he always stated to her that now her daughter is minor and they are in good terms so there is no need to give any receipt in this regard. His mother had expired on 05.1.2018. He further argued that her sister Sneh Lata also deposited amount in installments for the ornaments etc. and on asking for receipts, the OP stated that there was very good term with their mother, so there is no need for any receipt in this regard. On repeated requests, the OP had issued only a receipt of Rs.12,300/-. He further argued that her sister went to the shop of OP for purchasing a pair Om weighing 4 grams, upon which, the OP stated that her mother had already ordered ear rings for her. Her sister demanded said ornaments made of gold ornaments of Halmarks, upon which, the OP became angry and gave duplicate/artificial ornaments to her in place of golden Halmarks ornaments. The complainant kept on visiting to the shop of OP and demanded the original ornaments for the marriage of her sister, but every time the OP lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and flatly refused to supply/give any ornament and also refused to return the amount.

7.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP has also reiterated all the averments mentioned in the reply. He argued that the mother of the complainant who deposited the alleged amount never complained to the OP nor to any administrative authority. The OP does not know the mother of the complainant. The mother of the complainant never deposited any money with the OP as alleged. Neither the complainant nor his mother ever hired the services of the OP. He further argued that when no payment is deposited with the OP either by the complainant or by his mother, then question of issuing any receipt does not arise at all.

8.             From the pleadings and evidence, we found that the grievance of the complainant is that his mother Anguri Devi had deposited total Rs.32,300/- (20,000 +  12,300) with the OP for the ornaments for the marriage of her daughter namely Sneh Lata, but neither supplied the original ornaments nor returned the said amount. Whereas, on the other hand, the OP has denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant.

9.             To support his contention, the complainant has only produced receipt of Rs.12,300/- issued by the OP. From perusal of this, we found that the complainant gave Rs.12,300/- to the OP. In rebuttal of this receipt, the OP has failed to produce any evidence to prove that he had supplied the ornaments of that amount of Rs.12,300/- to the complainant or returned the said amount to the complainant. Since the complainant has failed to produce any receipt regarding amount of Rs.20,000/- on the case file, therefore, in absence of that, the contention of the complainant about giving Rs.20,000/- to the OP, is not believable.

10.            In these facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has given Rs.12,300/- to the OP for supply of ornaments, but the OP has failed either to supply the ornaments or to return the said amount. Hence, the OP is deficient in providing the services to the complainant.

11.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

1. To refund Rs.12,300/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 08.03.2019 i.e. the date of the filing the present complaint, till its realization, to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and         physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith   litigation expenses.

 

                The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:10.02.2020.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.