Punjab

Sangrur

CC/180/2017

Inderjitpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shamsher Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Bhushan Kumar Garg

16 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    180

                                                Instituted on:      03.05.2017

                                                Decided on:       16.08.2017

 

Inderjitpal aged 42 years son of Shri Ralla Ram C/o Mittal General Store, Bus Stand Road, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                        Versus

Shamsher Singh @ Soma son of Joginder Singh resident of Near Gurudwara, Near Chairman, Ramana Patti, Village Namol, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                                ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

For opposite party      :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Inderjitpal,  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 OP approached the complainant  and disclosed about a scheme of investment that the OP along with one Amritpal C/o Pal Medical, Bus Stand Road, Dhuri launched a scheme and asked the complainant to become a member as the OP is also a partner of the Paul Autos, Dhuri along with the said Amritpal.  Further case of the complainant is that as per the scheme of the OP, the complainant had to pay Rs.1700/- per month to the Op for 30 months regularly and the total amount of Rs.51,000/- was to be deposited and the Op was to draw a lucky coupon from the 300 members of the scheme and the member whose name comes in lucky draw he need not to pay the remaining instalments.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant paid first instalment to the OP on 18.9.2015 of Rs.1700/- and as such paid total 11 instalments of Rs.1700/- each regularly i.e. total Rs.18,700/-. It is further stated that when the complainant went to the Op to pay the instalment of August 2016, the Op told the complainant that he had closed the scheme and refused to accept the instalment. As such, the complainant requested the OP to refund the so deposited amount of Rs.18,700/-, but the OP did not refund the same. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.18,700/- along with interest @ 24% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the Op was proceeded exparte on 2.8.2017.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 copies of the receipts, Ex.C-12 copy of challan, Ex.C-13 copy of account passbook of the complainant, Ex.C-14 visiting card and Ex.C-15 affidavit of the complainant and closed evidence.

 

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

 

5.             At the outset, a bare perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant has filed the present complaint against one Shamsher Singh resident of Village Namol, whereas the complainant has produced on record the receipts i.e. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 by M/s. Paul Autos, M.K.Road, Dhuri (Sangrur), but the complainant has not arrayed the said firm M/s. Paul Autos, Dhuri as an opposite party.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not array M/s. Paul Autos, M.K.Road, Dhuri, which was a very much necessary party as the amount has been received by Paul Autos, Dhuri on different dates as is evident from the copies of the receipts Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11.  It is worth mentioning here that though the complainant has alleged in the complaint that the Op is one of the partner of the firm M/s. Paul Autos, Malerkotla Road, Dhuri, but again there is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not arrayed as a party i.e. M/s Paul Autos, Sangrur in the present case.   We have very carefully perused the receipts Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11, but we find no signatures of Shamsher Singh i.e. OP on the said receipts.  We have also perused the copy of passbook Ex.C-13 and again it shows that the same has been issued by Paul Autos, Dhuri. Ex.C-14 is the original card of the OP showing that he is working as a Sales Manager in Krishna Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Sangrur.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case that he ever paid any amount to the OP, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint merits dismissal as stated above.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        August 16, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member