Haryana

Ambala

CC/340/2022

NAMAN JAIN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAIFFI INDUSTRIES. - Opp.Party(s)

VIKAS CHAND

02 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	340 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	02.09.2022
Date of decision	:	02.01.2024

Naman Jain son of Shri Anup Jain, proprietor of M/s Sagar Enterprises, B-32, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant

Versus

SAIFFI  INDUSTRIES, Shop No.1-2, near Lakhishah Maszid, old Anaj Mandi, Ambala City through its proprietor Parvez Aalam

….….  Opposite Party

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:-     None for the complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                  Shri Nikhil Handa, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To refund balance amount of Rs.9,99,153/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. till realization.
2. To pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment, strain and stress and mental tension caused to the Complainant
3. To pay Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant received a contract from PUSHPAK Products India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru. Thereafter, he placed order with the OP for supply of plastic moulding die on 31.05.2020 for Rs.21,00,000/- and the work was to be completed within three months. The time was the essence of the contract. The complainant made advance for the work to be done by the OP and made total payment of Rs.1115753/- on different dates through different accounts which is as under:-

Sr. No.	Dated	Amount	Remarks
	31.05.2020	50,000	Cash
	16.06.2020	2,00,000/-	NEFT SBI, Saving A/c No.20283073511
	17.06.2020	300000	NEFT SBI, Saving A/c No.20283073511
	28.06.2020	200000	cash
	06.08.2020	100000	NEFT Axis, Current Account No.920020041419112
	23.09.2020	1500000	NEFT Axis, Current Account No.920020041419112
	05.02.2021	30000	NEFT Axis, Current Account No.920020041419112
	16.02.2021	20000	NEFT Axis, Current Account No.920020041419112
	18.05.2021	20000	NEFT Axis, Current A/c No.920020041419112
	30.09.2021	26.337.60	Bill No.2021/08 for sale
	12.10.2021	5255.71	Bill No.2021/11 for sale
	06.01.2022	14,160/-	Bill No.2021/25 for Sale

Even after receipt of the huge amount in advance, the OP failed to complete the purchase order and whenever the complainant visited and contacted the OP and requested to complete the work, the OP used to put off the matter on one pretext or the other. When the OP failed to comply with the purchase order, the complainant demanded his money back. The OP promised to return the amount and returned the amount of Rs.82,600/- on 28.07.2020, Rs.10,000/- on 09.11.2021 through SBI Saving Account No. 20283073511, an amount of Rs.24,000/- on 22.03.2022 through Axis, Current Account A/C No. 920020041419112 and thereafter has not returned any amount. Thus, now an amount of Rs.9,99,153.32 is outstanding against the OP, but it failed to return the same despite repeated requests and demands. The complainant finding no other alternative gave an application to the S.H.O. Police Station, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt on 05.05.2022, and the OP was called by the police, where he sought some time to return the money of the complainant but failed to do so. Thereafter, the complainant moved a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, but no action has been taken by the police. The act and conduct of the OP caused a lot of mental agony and financial loss. Hence, the present complaint.

3.           Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; the transaction of the complainant with the OP was to expand his business profit and the relation of the complainant and the OP is purely business to business relationship as such the complainant does not come under the definition of consumer; intricate question of law is involved in this complaint as such this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint as a subject matter in question is a civil dispute;  the complainant has suppressed and concealed the true and material facts from this Commission as such complaint is liable to be dismissed etc. On merits, it has been stated that infact on 31.05.2020 the complainant has placed an order for manufacturing of two sets of moulding die to the OP. The OP had told the complainant estimated cost of Rs.22 Lakhs for manufacturing the said moulding die and further told that the complainant initially have to pay 60% cost amount in advance and rest of the amount shall be paid on the completion of work. Six months’ time was fixed to supply the moulding die. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- on different dates to the OP, thereafter the complainant has not paid the 60% advance amount. However, the   complainant further requested the OP to start the work and the remaining amount shall be paid shortly. Upon this the OP purchased the raw material for manufacturing the die in question and spent a sum of Rs.200000/- on it and also called for its labours and purchased other material which was to be used in making the same. Thereafter the complainant with his malafide intention many time asked the OP to stop the work. The complainant is also a manufacturer of different modules i.e. surgical, veterinary equipment, CNC turning aluminium pressure die and casting etc. and was also working/manufacturing for the OP and the OP paid all the amount and nothing was due towards the OP. The complainant has failed to perform his part of contract as he has not paid the amount as agreed and he himself refused to get the work complete from the OP. The OP never refused to complete his part of contract till today and is ready to complete the work under order. Mover the OP has requested the complainant to take the delivery of one set of die which was already completed but the complainant has refused to take the delivery. It is absolutely incorrect that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash on 31.05.2020 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.06.2020 and the other amount shown in column 7, 8, 9 of the complaint is related to the payment of another order and that order was completed by supplying the material and the amount shown in column 10, 11, 12 of the  complaint is related to the payment made by the OP for the work done by the complainant.
4.           The complainant had placed the order for preparing the Aluminium Mould and Hole Jig Fixture to the OP and thereafter the OP has completed the work and supply the goods to the complainant and issued the bill no.8 of Rs.82600/- on 28/8/2020 and the complainant has not made the said payment. The OP is legally entitled to recover the amount of Rs.82600/- from the complainant. This order was totally different order with the above order of Rs.2200000/-. The complainant gave an application to the SHO Police Station, Mahesh Nagar. Ambala Cantt and the OP was called by the Police and after going through the true and material facts the police have not taken any action against the OP. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP  and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with cost.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-14 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered evidence of Parvez Aalam, Proprietor of Saiffi Industries, Shop No.1-2, Near Lakhi Shah Maszid, old Anaj Mandi, Ambala City as Annexure OP-1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.
6.           None put in appearance on behalf of the complainant on the date of arguments therefore, we have heard the learned counsel for OP and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for OP while reiterating the objections raised in the written version submitted that it was the complainant who did not make the remaining payment towards the order of moulding die, though the said product was made ready within the committed time. He further submitted that the complainant has failed to perform his part of contract as he has not paid the amount as agreed and he himself refused to get the work complete from the OP. He further submitted that it is absolutely incorrect that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash on 31.05.2020 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.06.2020 and the other amount shown in column 7, 8, 9 of the complaint is related to the payment of another order and that order was completed by supplying the material and the amount shown in column 10, 11, 12 of the  complaint is related to the payment made by the OP for the work done by the complainant.  
8.           First coming to the objection taken by the OP that the complainant is not a consumer, it may be stated here that the OP has failed to place on record any evidence to prove that the complainant was running his business to earn huge profits. As per Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Proprietor of any Firm/Company can file a consumer complaint for deficiency in service, unless it is proved that the said firm/company is running its business to earn huge profits only. Thus, objection taken by the OP is not tenable. Hence, rejected.
9.           It may be stated here that from the perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant and written version filed by the OP and the documents placed on record,   it is coming out that the complainant and the OP are leveling allegations against each other. The complainant has pleaded that he paid Rs.11,15,753/- to the OP for the supply of plastic moulding die within three months, from the date of order but it failed to supply the same and refunded Rs.1,16,600/- and the remaining amount of Rs.9,99,153/-, has still not been refunded by the OP. On the contrary, the stand of the OP is that the product ordered by the complainant was made ready within the committed time but the complainant neither paid the agreed amount and nor picked up the material. The complainant has wrongly alleged that he paid in cash Rs.50,000/- on 31.05.2020, Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.06.2020, and the other amount shown in the coloum No.7 to 9, in para No.3 of the complaint is related to payment of another order, which was completed by supplying the material and the amount shown in coloum No.10 to 12, in para No.3 of the complaint is related to the payment made by the OP for the work done by the complainant. Even this fact cannot be ignored that the statements given by the complainant and OP i.e Annexure C-11 & C-13 respectively are contrary to each other and are also not co-relating to the complaint filed by the complainant as well as written version filed by the OP. It is significant to mention here that the documents placed on record are not sufficient to come to any definite conclusion, under these circumstances, we are of the view that to come to any definite conclusion it requires voluminous evidence, scrutiny including examination of witnesses/ various documents, and the same is not possible under the summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Munimaesh Patel, IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the proceedings before the Consumer Fora are essentially summary in nature and the matter having complex factual position could not be examined by the consumer Fora and the appropriate Forum was the civil Court.
10.           In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The complainant may seek his remedy before the appropriate civil Court, if he so desires, and may seek condonation of delay, under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, for the time spent before this Commission. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced:- 02.01.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President