DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 561/2016
Date of Institution : 14.06.2016
Date of Decision : 12.06.2017
Gram Panchayat Village Talwandi Block Sehna Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala through Smt. Ranjit Kaur Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Village Talwandi Block Sehna and Surjit Singh Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Talwandi. …Complainant
Versus
1. Sumit Mittal BKO Village Ugoke (Barnala) Barnala.
2. Sh. Sumit Mittal, Sumit Mittal BKO Village Ugoke (Barnala) Barnala.
3. State Bank of Patiala, The Mall Patiala now merged in State Bank of India through its Branch Manager.
4. State Bank of Patiala main Now merged in State Bank of India Barnala through its Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. DS Simmak counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2.
Sh. AK Jindal counsel for opposite parties No. 3 and 4.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
3. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Gram Panchayat Village Talwandi Block Sehna has filed the present complaint against Sumit Mittal BKO, Village Ugoke opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and State Bank of Patiala now State Bank of India opposite parties No. 3 and 4 under Consumer Protection Act. (In short the Act).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is a Gram Panchayat and vide resolution dated 3.10.2015 Smt. Ranjit Sarpanch and Surjit Singh Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Talwandi Block Sehna have been authorized and empowered to file the present complaint. The Gram Panchayat received funds from the Punjab Government. In order to start the work for construction of a wall of cremation ground it was resolved that 30,000 bricks and other material was required. In this regard an order was placed with the opposite party No. 2 to supply 30,000 bricks. Opposite party No. 2 assured and promised the complainant that a bill for the purchase of said bricks be given in advance and it got the signatures of Sarpanch Ranjit Kaur on invoice No. 277 dated 15.2.2014 for supply of 30,000 bricks.
3. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 demanded the amount in advance and due to this reason, a cheque bearing No. 316624 dated 20.2.2014 bearing Account No. 55066772778 amounting to Rs. 1,24,500/- drawn in State Bank of Patiala was issued in favour of opposite parties No. 1 and 2. It is further alleged that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are running a bank Account No. 65025134669 in State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Barnala and they withdrew the said amount on 8.3.2014.
4. The complainant further alleged that thereafter they requested the opposite party No. 2 to supply the bricks. However, the opposite party No. 2 told that the stock of bricks have already been sold and these will be supplied in the next round. The opposite party also gave assurance to supply the said bricks on the clearance of the cheque. It is further alleged that the opposite party refused to supply the bricks. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 State Bank of India have also failed to supply the copy of the Account Statement. Thus it is alleged that there is deficiency in service and hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to supply the bricks or to refund the amount of Rs. 1,24,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest.
2) To pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite parties No. 1 and 2 appeared but written version not filed.
6. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 filed a joint written statement taking legal objections on the ground that the complainant has no locus standi, this Forum has no jurisdiction, misuse of process of law and bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties.
7. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant maintains their account with their bank. It is further submitted that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 submitted a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,24,500/- in clearing and the amount of the cheque was duly credited in the account of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. However, they have denied that they refused to supply the copy of the Account Statement to the complainant. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In order to prove their case, the complainant have tendered into evidence copies of resolutions Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3, copy of statement of account Ex.C-4, copy of ID Card Ex.C-5, affidavit of Ranjit Kaur Ex.C-6, affidavit of Surjit Singh Panchayat Secretary Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
9. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sumit Mittal Ex.OP-1.2/1 and closed the evidence. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Keemti Lal Chugh Ex.OP-3.4/1, copy of statement of account Ex.OP-3.4/2 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
11. The question is to determine whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 and 2.
12. In order to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has placed of record the affidavit of Ranjit Kaur Sarpanch Ex.C-6. In her affidavit she has stated that the complainant resolved for construction of a wall of the cremation ground and for that 30,000 bricks and other material was required and an order was placed with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to supply 30,000 bricks. She further stated that the opposite party No. 2 assured and promised that the bill for the purchase of said bricks was given in advance and got her signatures on Invoice No. 277 dated 15.2.2014 for supply of 30,000 bricks. She further stated that the opposite party demanded the amount in advance and due to this reason a cheque No. 316624 dated 20.2.2014 bearing Account No. 55066772778 amounting to Rs. 1,24,500/- was also issued in the name of opposite parties No. 1 and 2. She further stated that the said amount was withdrawn by the opposite parties on 8.3.2014. However, she stated that the bricks were not supplied by the opposite parties. Surjit Singh Member Secretary Gram Panchayat has filed his affidavit Ex.C-7 which is also on the same lines.
13. Perusal of the affidavits of both the said Sarpanch and Member Secretary shows that Bill No. 277 dated 15.2.2014 for supply of 30,000 bricks was issued by the opposite parties and it also got the signatures of authorized person i.e Sarpanch. It is also the case of the complainant that against the said advance bill, the complainant issued a cheque of Rs. 1,24,500/- in favour of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and the amount was withdrawn by the said opposite parties on 8.3.2014. Thus, there is no dispute that the opposite parties issued a bill No. 277 dated 15.2.2014 for supply of 30,000 bricks and against that bill, a cheque No. 316624 dated 20.2.2014 was received by the opposite parties for Rs. 1,24,500/-. There is also no dispute that the said amount was credited in the account of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 on 8.3.2014.
14. The main contention of the complainant is that the bill as well as cheque were given in advance but against these advance documents the opposite party had not supplied the bricks. However, in his affidavit Ex.OP-1.2/1 Sumit Mittal has stated that the alleged 30,000 bricks were supplied to the then Sarpanch Ranjit Kaur and in this regard signatures of Sarpanch Ranjit Kaur on Invoice No. 277 dated 15.2.2014 were obtained regarding the delivery of 30,000 bricks. The said proprietor of Brick Killen has specifically stated that the complaint is false.
15. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the bill as well as cheque were given in advance and physically no bricks were supplied is untenable as the complainant has not placed on record any document or any writing of the opposite party to indicate that the supply of the bricks will be given later on. Even, the complainant failed to place on record any document to show that in the said business prior to supply of the goods it was necessary to give payment in advance and also to receive bill duly signed in advance.
16. Moreover, it is very strange that the complainant remained silent for about more than two years if no supply of the bricks was given by the opposite parties. No correspondence has been placed on record between the opposite parties and the complainant to indicate that the complainant continued to ask for the supply of bricks against the advance payment. In fact the onus to prove the allegations was upon the complainant but the complainant has miserably failed to discharge the onus.
17. As a result of the above discussion there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. However, it is worth mentioning here that the procedure of deciding the complaint in Consumer Fora is of summary nature and if the complainant is alleging that the opposite parties have played fraud with them by not supplying the bricks then the fraud can only be proved by leading evidence by both the parties and therefore the best course for the complainant is to approach the Civil Court or any other Competent Court to redress their grievance if any if so advised in accordance with law. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
12th Day of June 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
