STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

                                                APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2010

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

                                                                                                            ….Appellants.

Versus

Sh. Satwinder Singh son of Sh. Nirmal Singh R/o Village Alipur, Post Office Babat, Tehsil and District Mohali.

                                                                                                            ….Respondents.

BEFORE:             HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:             Sh. R. S. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Sh. Jagdish Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                     This is an appeal filed by OP against order dated 29.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 908 of 2009.

2.           Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he sold 57 quintal wheat for Rs.57,000/- to FCI through OP. It was admitted by the complainant that he received a sum of Rs.17,760/- and Rs.24,500/- from OP but Rs.10,500/- remained balance with the OP. As per the complainant, he requested OP several times to pay him the balance amount of Rs.10,500/- but nothing was done. It was next averred that on 7.09.09, when the complainant visited OP, it flatly refused to pay the balance amount.  Alleging non refund of the balance amount of Rs.10,500/- by the OP as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant had filed complaint before the learned District Forum.

3.             The version of OP is that the complainant had concealed the material fact regarding approaching it on 12.04.08 for hiring the service in respect of sale of wheat crop. As per the OP, the complainant had received a sum of Rs.22,000/- in cash as loan-cum-advance against the crop of wheat. It was next stated that a sum of Rs.56,760/- was to be paid to the complainant after deducting Rs.240/- as labour charges, whereas the OP had already paid a total sum of Rs.68,260/- to the complainant and thus, an amount of Rs.11,500/- remained in excess with the complainant. Transaction for the year 2009 had been specifically denied by the OP by stating that the complainant never visited him on 7.9.2009. Pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint, while redressing the contention of OP regarding excess payment of Rs.11,260/- against the complainant, recorded in the impugned order 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.  The other reason with the learned District Forum for not accepting this contention of OP was that the OP had failed to produce the account books to suggest if any amount of Rs.22,000/- was withdrawn from the accounts of the Firm and subsequently paid to the complainant.  As per the learned District Forum, in the absence of the amount having been withdrawn, OP was not having any such amount for payment and as such, as per the learned District Forum, this receipt obviously was proved to be a fabricated one. In the view of the learned District Forum, there was no dispute about it that the complainant had engaged the services of the OP for selling the wheat crop and after selling the wheat, it was the duty of the OP to make payment of the remaining amount of Rs.10,500/- as per Annexure C-1. In view of its above discussion, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,500/- along with a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation besides costs of litigation, which was quantified as Rs.2,200/-.  OP was directed to pay the entire amount within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which, OP was made liable to pay the same along with penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of file the complaint i.e. 14.09.09 till actual payment.

5.             Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the OP has filed the present appeal praying for setting aside the impugned order and dismissing the complaint. Record of complaint case was summoned from the District Forum. Sh. R. S. Dhiman, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant/OP whereas Sh. Jagdish Sharma, Advocate represented the respondent/complainant.

6.             We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             From perusal of the documents on record particularly Annexure C-1 i.e. copy of receipt/Form J, it becomes apparently clear that vide this receipt, the complainant had sold 57 quintal of wheat to FCI through OP for a total consideration of Rs.57,000/-. As per the averment made by the complainant that the OP had made a payment of Rs.4,000/- on 28.4.2008, Rs.17,760/- on 29.4.2008 and Rs.24,500/- on 9.5.2008 and the payment of Rs.10,500/- is still due from the OP towards the sale of the said wheat for which the OP had issued a receipt (C-1). On the other hand, as per the averment of the OP that on 12.4.2008, the complainant has took a loan of Rs.22,000/- (R-2), which has not been paid back by the complainant, therefore, the said amount of Rs.22,000/- was deducted from the total amount of Rs.57,000/- as per Annexure C-1 and there is nothing due from the OPs, rather the complainant has to pay back a sum of Rs.11,260/- to the OP. From the perusal of Annexure R-2, a photocopy of receipt shows that the payment of Rs.22,000/- was made in cash as a loan and the same was signed by the complainant i.e. Satwinder Singh. But the complainant has vehemently denied this receipt (R-2) and contended that neither the complainant had obtained any loan from the OP nor signed any receipt (R-2). This receipt (R-2) is a manipulated document and the OP has forged his signatures on it.

8.             After going through the facts of the case and the documents put forth by counsel for both the parties and in the absence of Account Books, which were to be produced on record by the OP, from where entry of Rs.22,000/- against loan to the complainant can be verified. It cannot be believed that this Receipt (R-2) is a genuine document and in the absence of authenticity of Annexure R-2, a conclusion cannot be drawn that the OP has advanced a loan of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the OP owed a sum of Rs.10,500/- towards the complainant as per Annexure C-1 and as such, the learned District has rightly directed the OP to make the due payment. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the order passed by learned District Forum is just, fair and legal and no interference is called for in the same.

9.             Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit and the impugned order is upheld. However, there are no orders as to costs.

10.           Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

23^rd August 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [MRS. NEENA SANDHU]

Ad/-                                                                                                                      MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2010

Argued by:             Sh. R. S. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Sh. Jagdish Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

                             -.-

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, the appeal filed by the OP has been dismissed.

23.8.2010                                           (PRESIDENT)                         (MEMBER)