Complaint Case No. 162/2023

Manoj Kumar Gupta age about 49 years S/o Vijay Prakash Gupta R/o Kasganj Road Charra Distt. Aligarh

V/s

Siddhant Jwellers through Manu Verma Vishnu Puri Aligarh

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1.       The Op be directed to give the bangles of the gold value Rs.1000000/or to pay the said amount with interest @18% per annum from 13.4.2021 till the date of payment.  
2. The Op be directed to pay litigation  expenses Rs.25000/.  

2. Complainant has stated that he is a businessman and good relation with OP who often provides the ornament after manufacturing from the gold purchased by him against the amount paid to him. On 13.4.2021 complainant paid the payment Rs.1000000 through cheque bearing name Ankit drawn at HDFC Bank, Ramghat Road, Aligarh from A/c No. 50200020326785 maintain by his firm M/s Manoj Trade Company B 37 Naveen Mandi Sthal, Chhara, Aligarh. OP has promised to provide the complainant within 4-5 months the bangles manufactured from the gold   by purchasing out of the money paid to him and complainant had promised to pay the service charges of manufacturing the bangles at the time of giving the bangles to him. Complainant has further stated that he had promised to pay the amount of service charges as a consideration for rendering services of manufacturing the bangles and thereby a relationship of consumer and service provider existed between them. OP has failed to discharge his obligation and committed deficiency in service.               
3. Op submitted in WS that the complainant has been filed against the Siddhant Jewelers through Manu Verma whereas the answering person Diyanash is the sole proprietor of the firm and not alleged person Manu Verma. OP has further stated that on 13.4.2021   no amount has been alleged to have paid to the firm or the answering person and the amount of the alleged cheque  was not credited to the account of answering person. The payment of amount of the alleged cheque has been shown to sum Ankit and no payment was made to the account of answering person there has been no transaction of the complainant with the answering person and no payment of the amount of alleged cheque was made to the the answering person or his account. There is no relationship consumer and service provider between the parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. OP has also filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties.
6. First question for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
7. Complainant has filed the complaint against the firm namely Siddhant Jewelers and he has alleged to have good relations and dealing with the firm for manufacturing ornaments from gold purchased out of the money paid by the complainant. It is immaterial to array the OP firm through whatever a person as the firm is being represented by the answering OP as sole proprietor of the firm. The liability has been alleged against the firm and not against any individual. The objection raised by the answering OP has no substance.
8. Complainant has alleged the payment of Rs.1000000 to the op firm through Ankit whose name cheque for Rs. 1000000 was drawn at HDFC Bank account maintained by the complainant’s firm. Ankit has filed affidavit regarding transition of payment of the amount Rs. 1000000 in support of complainant version and statement of bank account has also been filed in it support. OP has denied the payment but there is no sufficient material to disprove the factum of payment of Rs. 1000000. Thus the payment of Rs.1000000 for manufacturing the bangles of gold is proved.
9.  Admittedly, answering OP firm is jewelers and undoubtedly deals in ornaments and the allegation of the complainant for manufacturing of the bangles for the gold by the OP firm is quite probable and cannot be denied. As the complainant had promised to pay service charges at the time of giving bangles to the complainant as a consideration for rendering service of manufacturing service from the gold which establishes the relationship of consumer and service provider. As the op firm has failed to discharge its liability and is liable to pay the amount with interest.         
10. Question is formulated in favor of complainant.     
11. We hereby direct the Op to pay the amount Rs. 1000000 with pendente lite and future interest @9% per annum. Op shall also pay to the complainant Rs. 10000 as litigation expenses.
12. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.