Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that in the month of November, 2018 Opposite Party No.1 approached the complainant and told that they do the business of Modular Kitchen and interior decorator and also shown number of pictures of modular kitchen and due to the allurement of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant made his mind to renovate his kitchen and after meeting with Opposite Party No.1, the complainant made his mind to demolish the interior of his previously constructed kitchen and the total amount settled for modular kitchen was Rs.3.25 lakhs and Rs.25,000/- extra for the main shelf of the kitchen. For this, Opposite Party No.1 assured that they will provide an excellent quality material and services for the modular kitchen and promised to make the same within a period of 10-15 days and for this, Opposite Party No.1 received Rs.1.5 lakhs from the complainant vide cheque which was duly honoured. The Opposite Parties also promised to start the work of modular kitchen within a week but actually the Opposite Parties started the work after about 2 months i.e in January, 2019 and did not complete the same till February 2019 and demanded another Rs.1 lakh which was paid by the complainant on 05.02.2019 vide cheque. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to complete the work, but to no affect. In March, 2019 Opposite Party No.1 just shown to complainant that work of modular kitchen is almost complete and on 16.03.2019 raised the demand of Rs.75,000/- and told that the work will be done within 2- 3 days and on this, the complainant handed over the cheque of Rs.60,000/-, but the work of modular kitchen has not been completed till today, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainant was surprised when after 2 days modular kitchen started deteriorating and he realized that he has been cheated by the Opposite Parties as the material used by the Opposite Parties was of inferior quality and not upto standard as assured by the Opposite Parties. As a result household work of the complainant pertaining to kitchen got totally hampered and came to stand still. In this way, the Opposite Parties have cheated the complainant and played a fraud with the complainant. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant is left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.14,18,000/- in total as Rs.3.35 lakhs already paid to the ops for preparation of modular kitchen and Rss.10.5 lakhs on account of damages i.e. financial loss in complainant business, mental tension, stress, anxiety to the complainant as well as family members and a sum of Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses or grant any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit.
2. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complaint is absolutely false and frivolous and complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and requires elaborate evidence both oral and documentary for the just decision of the present complaint. Moreover, lengthy examination in chief and cross examination of the parties/ witnesses are required in the present complaint, so the complaint is required to be decided by the civil court. True facts are that Opposite Parties is running its business of interiors designing from the last 10-12 years with the high number of satisfied customers and no complaint of any kind ever arose and all the customers of the Opposite Parties are fully satisfied by the services provided by the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties maintain a good reputation in all over Punjab in field of Interior Decoration and provide products and goods and accessories for interior designing as per the demands of the customers. The complainant inspected about the different types of products and accessories used in Modular kitchen and interior decorating goods and the Opposite Parties showed the complainant different brochure of kitchen accessories of different companies and the complainant as per their wishes after consulting his family members decided the products which they want to install in their kitchen and thereafter, the complainant at his own with their free will hired the services of the Opposite Parties. Moreover, there is no guarantee for the products like glass as the durability and breakage of the glass depends upon war and tear, its usage and care of the customer. Not only this, the skilled labour was provided by the Opposite Parties to install each and every accessories to the full satisfaction of the complainant and completed the work only after the complainant was satisfied with the working of the accessories fitted at the premises of the complainant. In fact, when the Opposite Parties raised the balance amount due towards the complainant only then he filed the present false, frivolous and concocted complaint. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up the same and similar plea as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and as such, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents and photographs Ex.C2 to Ex.C37 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Tarun Jain.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their respective written statement. We have perused the rival contentions of the parties. It is not the denial of the case that complainant hired the services for the decoration / modular kitchen from the Opposite Parties. The case of the complainant is that the Opposite Parties have not given the best services while decorating modular kitchen as committed by them with the complainant. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have specifically denied these assertion of the complainant and contented that before the start of interior designing of modular kitchen, the complainant had inspected about the different types of products and accessories used in Modular kitchen and interior decorating goods and the Opposite Parties showed the complainant different brochure of kitchen accessories of different companies and the complainant as per their wishes after consulting his family members decided the products which they want to install in their kitchen and thereafter, the complainant at his own with their free will hired the services of the Opposite Parties. Moreover, there is no guarantee for the products like glass as the durability and breakage of the glass depends upon war and tear, its usage and care of the customer. Not only this, the skilled labour was provided by the Opposite Parties to install each and every accessories to the full satisfaction of the complainant and completed the work only after the complainant was satisfied with the working of the accessories fitted at the premises of the complainant. In fact, when the Opposite Parties raised the balance amount due towards the complainant only then he filed the present false, frivolous and concocted complaint. The complainant has failed to produce any iota of evidence to prove that the Opposite Parties have not provided the best services to the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has failed to produce on record any report of some expert of the field to prove that the Opposite Parties have failed to provide the best services as committed.
7. In the present complaint, complicated questions of facts are involved which require evidence at length and as such, the complaint can not be decided in a summary manner, therefore this Commission has no jurisdiction in the light of the judgement delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in which it has been clearly held that where there are complicated questions of facts and law which require lengthy trial and evidence to be led by both the parties and also to provide opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, then such type of the complaints should not be entertained by the Commission, rather should be relegated to the Civil Courts. But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complaint contained contentious questions of law and facts, which require voluminous evidence for deciding the same . The witnesses also require to be cross examined at length. The complaint proceedings before this Commission are summary in nature and this Commission cannot delve deep into the matter or allow the cross examination of numerous witnesses or production of voluminous documents. Since the matter relates to intricate questions of law and facts. A probe into the matter is required to be made. As such, this Commission cannot exercise its jurisdiction to decide the intricate questions of law and facts in a summary manner. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, whereine Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
Further whereas, the procedure before this Commission is of summary in nature and the evidence of expert and cross-examination of alleged witnesses cannot be made in this Commission. Our Hon'ble Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi observed in the citation 2014(1)CLT, paged 481 titled as M/s Heights Trade (P) Ltd. Vs UCO Bank, whereas, our Hon'ble National Commission held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13-Summary Procedure. Complicated question. Jurisdiction-Intricate and complicated questions involved in the case. It would be difficult to decide the case on mere documents. The evidence of Experts and Record have to be looked into. These questions must be discussed by an appropriate forum or civil court. The Consumer Commission must refrain from arrogating those powers which it does not possess.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is not maintainable in this District Consumer Commission for its proper adjudication and the same stands dismissed. However, the complainant can get redressal of his grievance from the Civil Court/ or any other competent authority, in accordance with law, for which the time spent before this District Commission shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
9. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
