3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ravi Pandit Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party.
5. Ld.counsel for the complainant in arguments has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the Opposite Party contracted with the complainant that Opposite Party will provide his services i.e. shoot movie, prepare DVD’s make albums click photos of all the functions etc, to complainant on 15.4.2017, 16.4.2017, 17.4.2017 and 18.4.2017 for different ceremonies i.e. Sukhmani Sahib Path, Ladies Sangeet, saint ceremony, Ring Ceremony, Shrabandi, Sai Sandhya, Marriage Ceremony, pre-wedding shoot etc; that Opposite Party also contracted with the complainant that Opposite Party will install four plasma TVs, one long arm camera, make movie and prepare DVDs, album (still photos) of all he ceremonies/ functions; that the Opposite Party also contracted with the complainant to play (pre wedding shoot) movie on the occasion of marriage ceremony on 17.4.2017; that after settling all the contractual services, Opposite Party told the complainant that for all these services Opposite Party will charge around Rs.1 lac from the complainant; that the complainant agreed to this on good faith and paid Rs.40,000/- to Opposite Party on 29.3.2017 vide cheque as advance payment. The complainant made advance payment of Rs.20,000/- on 9.6.2017 and again made a payment of Rs.20,000/- on 20.7.2017; that even after taking Rs.80,000/- from the complainant, the Opposite Party has not provided services as promised by the Opposite Party and breach the contract made with the complainant; that the Opposite Party has not handed over to complainant any material/ stuff relating to marriage functions such as DVD’s still photos, videos, albums, pre-wedding shoot movie, pre-wedding shoot pictures/ photos etc. All the above mentioned material is lying with Opposite Party which is property of the complainant; that the Opposite Party has neither installed four Plasma TVs nor One long arm camera. Further, the Opposite Party has also not played pre wedding shoot (movie) in the marriage ceremony as promised by the Opposite Party. After repeated requests, Opposite Party has given 12 blue ray discs (movie of different marriage functions). After receiving 12 blue ray discs, when the complainant tried to play it on his DVD player, the blue rays discs did not play. Thereafter, the complainant approached Opposite Party that the discs are not being played on his DVD players, then Opposite Party told the complainant to purchase blue ray disc player as the blue ray discs did not play on DVD player. The complainant told the Opposite Party that he did not order blue ray discs, he only ordered DVDs but Opposite Party included the price of those 12 blue rays discs, which was not ordered by the complainant and not a part of contract. Moreover, the Opposite Party has not given any still photos to the complainant. The material such as Videos, photos, pre-wedding, hard discs lying with Opposite Party is the property of the complainant. It is further contended that the Opposite Party has not fulfilled the contractual services as promised by the Opposite Party and therefore, breached the contract and in this way, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. To support the aforesaid contentions, the complainant has produced on file his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, its acknowledgement receipt Ex.C3, copy of reply of notice given by the counsel of Opposite Party Sh.Anish Kant Sharma Ex.C4, copy of letter written by Sh.Ravi Pandit, Opposite Party to the SHO, P.S. Moga Ex.C5 alongwith copy of Aadhar card of the complainant Ex.C6. Ld.counsel for the Complainant in his support has cited a ruling of Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in case titled as: Rajiv Sharma Vs. Rakesh Bajaj, in CC No.7 of 2015, decided on 27.4.2018.
6. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that actually, the Opposite Party is doing the work of photography under the name and style of Ravi Photo Centre, since last about 40 years and no dispute ever arose of the Opposite Party with any client. The complainant has booked Opposite Party to shoot the marriage ceremony (Videography and Photography) as well as the other functions of marriage of the son of the complainant namely Abhishek Shukla which was solemnised on 17.4.2017 and other ceremonies i.e. path of Sukhmani Sahib on 15.4.2017, Ring Ceremony performed on 16.4.2017, Maiyan and Ladies Sangeet performed on 15.4.2017 at night and Bhajan Sandhiya on 18.4.2017. Opposite Party gave an estimate to shoot all the above said functions to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/- in the month of March, 2017 when the complainant firstly visited at the shop of the Opposite Party , but the complainant bargained and Rs.1,10,000/- was settled between the complainant and the Opposite Party. It is further contended that after that the complainant also asked the Opposite Party to shoot the Saint ceremony of the bridal side and also to make album and copies of all the ceremonies i.e. videography and still photography for the bridal side. At that time, Opposite Party asked Rs.40,000/- for the above said additional work of the bridal side but the complainant settled the same at Rs.32,000/-. So, the total amount due towards the complainant is Rs.1,10,000/-+ Rs.32,000/- (Total Rs.1,42,000/-). Not only this, after that the complainant has asked to shoot pre wedding still photography at New Delhi on 24.3.2017 in additional to the above said works and same was done. But the complainant has paid only Rs.80,000/- out of the above said amount of Rs.1,42,000/- and Rs.62,000/- is still pending towards the complainant. Opposite Party done all the works with full dedication and honesty and tried to do all the things very well and the complainant was also satisfied from the work of the Opposite Party. Actually, the complainant has cheated the Opposite Party and the complainant took all the raw material which was shot by Opposite Party in his camera i.e. still photography through emails at complainant’s e-mail address Hon’ble Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in case titled as Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Vs. Himanshu S.Thumar 2005(2) CPJ page 92, decided on 26.11.2004. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has further contended that the complainant has committed cheating with the Opposite Party by not making him the remaining amount of Rs.62,000/- and in this regard, he has also cited the rulings i.e. (i) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, (ii) 1(2004) CPJ page 101 of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and (iii) R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors also of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, iv) Vishamber Sunderdas Badlani And Anr. Vs. Indian Bank and 3 Ors in Original Petition No. 24 of 2005, decided on 28.9.2007 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, and v) Daljit Singh Dogra Vs. ING Vysya Bank Limited and Others in 2009(4), CLT 22 and 2009 (51) RCR (Civil) 94 decided on 29.01.2009 of Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh . To support the aforesaid contentions, the Opposite Party has produced on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1, copy of click to enable desktop notifications for G-mail sent to the son of the complainant Ex.OP2, copy of letter written by Sh.Ravi Pandit, Opposite Party to the SHO, P.S. Moga Ex.OP3, copy of reply of legal notice dated 12.02.2018 Ex.OP4, copies of acknowledgement receipts Ex.OP5 and Ex.OP6.
7. First of all, perusal of the documents on file shows that there is inter- se dispute between the complainant and Opposite Party because the version of the complainant is that the Opposite Party has to return Rs.30,000/- to the complainant for not installing four plasma TVs, one long arm camera and also for not playing pre-wedding shoot movie on the wedding ceremony held on 17.4.2017 and further contended that despite making full amount, the Opposite Party has not done the complete contracted work of the marriage ceremony of his son i.e. to deliver DVDs of all functions, still photos of all the functions, albums, pre-wedding shoot besides this the Opposite Party has also to deliver still photos of all functions, so that the complainant can select the pictures/ photos to be included in the marriage & engagement albums. But on the other hand, the Opposite Party has vehemently contended that the complainant has not paid him the remaining settled amount of Rs.62,000/- which is due against the complainant and in this way, the Opposite Party has suffered a loss which can not be compensated later on in the shape of money because he has suffered his reputation in the society as well as in the market. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to produce any proof showing that he has made the full settled amount of Rs.1,42,000/- to the Opposite Party. As argued above by the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party that the complainant has paid only Rs.80,000/- out of the above said amount of Rs.1,42,000/- and Rs.62,000/- is still pending towards the complainant. Opposite Party done all the works with full dedication and honesty and the complainant was also satisfied from the work of the Opposite Party. In this way, the complainant has cheated the Opposite Party and got the copies of the whole work done by Opposite Party in the USB Hard Disc of the complainant in the month of July, 2017. After the wedding and providing all the wedding material i.e. DVDs, Blue Rays discs and still photographs through e-mails etc, the Opposite Party demanded his remaining amount of Rs.62,000/- from the complainant, but the complainant abused and insulted the Opposite Party in the month of September, 2017 and then the Opposite Party moved an application regarding the above said matter to SHO, PS City Moga and enquiry was conducted by the concerned police official and the complainant was called then the complainant felt sorry orally and also agreed to pay the remaining amount of the Opposite Party before the Police Official and Panchayat Members. Perusal of the file and averments made by the ld.counsel for the parties shows that the instant dispute is the inter se dispute of the complainant and the Opposite Party with regard to calculation and accounts dispute etc. because the complainant is claiming refund of Rs.30,000/- and on the other hand, the Opposite Party is claiming Rs.62,000/- from the complainant i.e. the remaining amount out of the settled amount. In this regard, we draw support in this connection from Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Vs. Himanshu S.Thumar 2005(1) CPJ page 92, wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad has held that account dispute is not a ’consumer dispute’ and the complaint should not have been entertained by the District Consumer Forum.
8. Furthermore, as stated above and the perusal of the application filed by Opposite Party before the SHO, P.S.City, Moga Ex.OP4 (same copy filed by the complainant on filed as Ex.C5) shows that matter in question was also earlier went to Police Authority, P.S.City, Moga for redressal, where the matter may/ or may not have settled in the presence of Panchayat. Hence the matter in dispute can only be decided by the civil courts and not by this Forum. Even otherwise, in the present complaint, complicated questions of facts are involved which require evidence at length and as such, the complaint can not be decided in a summary manner, therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction in the light of the judgement delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in which it has been clearly held that where there are complicated questions of facts and law which require lengthy trial and evidence to be led by both the parties and also to provide opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, then such type of the complaints should not be entertained by the Forum, rather should be relegated to the Civil Courts. But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complaint contained contentious questions of law and facts, which require voluminous evidence for deciding the same . The witnesses also require to be cross examined at length. The complaint proceedings before this Forum are summary in nature and this Forum cannot delve deep into the matter or allow the cross examination of numerous witnesses or production of voluminous documents. Since the matter relates to intricate questions of law and facts. A probe into the matter is required to be made. As such, this Forum cannot exercise its jurisdiction to decide the intricate questions of law and facts in a summary manner. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
9. The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
10. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, whereine Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
11. The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
12. Further whereas, the procedure before this Forum is of summary in nature and the evidence of expert and cross-examination of alleged witnesses cannot be made in this Forum. Our Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi observed in the citation 2014(1)CLT, paged 481 titled as M/s Heights Trade (P) Ltd. Vs UCO Bank, whereas, our Hon'ble National Commission held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13-Summary Procedure. Complicated question. Jurisdiction-Intricate and complicated questions involved in the case. It would be difficult to decide the case on mere documents. The evidence of Experts and Record have to be looked into. These questions must be discussed by an appropriate forum or civil court. The Consumer Commission must refrain from arrogating those powers which it does not possess.
13. On the other hand, the ruling of Ld.District Forum, Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhri (supra) produced by the Complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, said decision of Ld.District Forum, Yamuna Nagar is not binding upon this Forum and the same can not be given any effect.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint and as such, the instant complaint stands dismissed. But however, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court or any other competent authority for the Redressal of his grievances, if he so desires. In doing so, if limitation comes in root, he can take advantage of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute II (1995) CPJ 1. But keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum.
