BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

                                                  Consumer Complaint No.   69 of 22.09.2021

                                  Date of decision           :    25.04.2022

Baljinder Singh aged about 56 years son of Sh. Rattan Singh , resident of House No.5814, Sukhrampur Tapparian, Phase I, Tehsil and District Rupnagar (Punjab) 

                                                                    ......Complainant

                                             Versus

Shri Naina Jewellers , shop at New Partap Bazar, Rupnagar Prop. Sanjay Nagi since deceased now through his LRs. Sh.Vivek Nagi son of late sanjay nagi now prop. Of Shri Naina jewelers shop at new partap Bazar Rupnagar

   ....Opposite Party

                                    Complaint under Section 35 of the                                               Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

                         SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                         MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

Sh. Hemant Chaudhary, Adv. counsel for complainant  

O.P. exparte 

                        Order dictated by Smt. Ranvir Kaur, Member

                         ORDER

1. The case in brief is that the deponant had paid Rs 2,50,000 advance in cash to Sanjay Nagi proprietor of Shri Naina Jeweller for making ornaments on the eve of upcoming marriage of his son and Sanjay Nagi gave assurance to make the  ornaments with in 4 and 5 months in the presence of his son Vivek Nagi.
2. Now after the death of Sanjay Nagi his son Vivek Nagi is the beneficiary of his property which was left by him and Nagi become the proprietor of said shop. So as per law when op received the benefits of his deceased father then he is liable to pay the liabilities of his deceased father. During the lifetime of deceased, he never made jewellery for deponent unfortunately he died. After his death complainant requested to his son to make ornaments Sanjay Nagi. since deceased as well as his son Vivek Nagi i.e OP has failed to do so. Even after approaching number of timed and requested to OP either to make jewellery as per previous rate or to return the amount Rs. 2,50,000/- but he lately refused.
3. In the afore-said circumstances through exhibit C-7 placed on record by the complainant is not in the proper form of the receipt of money by the OP. However as the OP has been proceeded against ex-parte that the complainant through his evidence which remained un-rebated , has proved payment of Rs. 2,50,000/-  to the OP.
4.  So the case of complainant succeed. Another corroborating factor in favour of the complainant is the complaint filed by him to the police authority. Though no action on it was taken by the police on the ground that it was civil matter. Moreover as per civil law, civil liability travels to the legal heirs inheriting the property of the deceased.
5. So after considering all the facts, the present complaint is allowed against OP. OP is directed to pay the full payment to complainant Rs.2,50,000 along with litigation expenses Rs.10,000 and for mental agony Rs.15,000/-. However ,if the OP fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of   receipt of this order he will be liable to pay 6 % per annum interest on the decretal amount till its payment. The OP is further directed to comply with the above said order within 30 days from the date of receiving of copy of this order.  Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be indexed and consigned to record room.
6.  
7.  

(Ranjit Singh)

(Ranvir Kaur)