Complainant Manjit Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith double amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party alongwith Rs.5,00,000/- as litigation expenses  and mental agony and harassment alongwith interest @ 18% be also paid to him till the realization of the amount, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that the opposite party is a Commission Agent and purchased grains and rice and makes payment of the price thereof to the seller after deducting his commission.  He and his family also sells paddy to the opposite party who is the Commission Agent in the name and style of Johal Commission agent at Qadian Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and they have cordial relations with them. The opposite party was to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to him by 5.11.2016. An agreement to this respect was also  reduced into blank and white by the deed writer Mukhriar Singh Stamp vendor Naushehra Majja Singh, which bears the signature of the opposite party and witnesses. He has further pleaded that the opposite party had given a bogus cheque no.580435 dated 5.11.2016 drawn in his favour of Punjab National Bank Qadian bearing the signatures of opposite party which the agreement was again extended to 5.6.2017 by the deed writer, which bears the signatures of the opposite party. The opposite party kept on procrastinating his genuine request and has returned an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to him which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party received back with the report of “Refusal”. Case called several times, but none had come present on its behalf, therefore, it was  proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.1.2018.

4.         In exparte evidence complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, of Lakhwinder Singh Ex.C2 and of Jaspal Singh Ex.C3, alongwith other documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. 

5.      We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as made available on the complaint records (as duly put forth by the participating litigants) along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially but discretionarily drawn on account of the intentional non-participation of the lone opposite party individual (who instead preferred ex-parte proceedings), in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsel for the complaining/participating side.

6.       We find that the complainant (along with two other persons alleging familiarity with facts) had duly deposed on record (Affidavits Ex.C1 to Ex.C3) that the opposite party individual has been currently engaged in the business of ‘Commission Agent’ with the complainant selling his agricultural-produce through him/ his shop namely: Johal Commission Agent. Further, the OP commission agent owed (was to pay) Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant as on 05.11.2016 in terms of the related agreement (Ex.C4) and had also issued an account payee cheque (Ex.C5) for Rs.3,00,000/- on 05.11.2016 in his favor. However, the OP has been deferring the said payment on one or other pretext and finally prompted the present complaint with prayed reliefs by way of cheque-amount refund along with cost and compensation etc.                   

7.       We find that the opposite party individual has somehow preferred the ex-parte proceedings to contesting of litigation and going by the trite law we come across judicial but discretionary presumption that a willful absentee (litigant) does not have any defense to plead but at the same time an absentee need to be put to one fair and lawful trial.

8.       We find that the present complainant has so far successfully proved his complaint contented allegations through multi-affidavits (Ex.C1 to Ex.C3) and the other evidentiary documents (Ex.C4 to Ex.C7); but somehow the round figure amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has not been proved to be the balance proceeds of sales-transactions of agricultural-produce sold by the complainant through the OP commission agent. The absence of details of the sales transactions fades the consumer/service-provider relationship and that also imparts the hue of ‘settlement of accounts’ with subsequent ‘recovery’ to the present lis and that finally places/puts it away outside the consumer-forums’ statutory jurisdiction. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon one judgment of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur in case Gangaram Sinha Versus Swaroop Chand Jain of 2004 (4) C.P.J.807 which is not applicable as well as is not of any help to the complainant in the present facts and circumstance.

 9.      In the light of the all above, we do not see the hue of any actionable statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal but with liberty to the complainant to approach Civil Court of competent jurisdiction on the same cause of action if he so desires and advised. No orders as to its costs.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

               (Naveen Puri)

                                                                               President   

Announced:                                                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

May,09 2018                                                           Member

*MK*